Science and Doubt

[Polymath257]

I'd also say that instead of just doing a google search, do a search on scholar.google.com. That tends to bring up the scholarly articles and less of the pop science stuff.

There *are* good science news outlets. if you are interested, I can PM them.

 

[exchemist]

I don't know that the science journalists are doing anything to willfully distort science, but I suspect that they are journalists because they really lack the solid expertise required to fully understand what any new paper may really state.

Their job, in the end, is to help an even less science-literate public understand at least something about what's going on.

Just for example, I'm one who would be considered less than science-literate, and no matter how hard I try to understand the concept of quantum entanglement, I just get lost. I look for better and better science journalists, because I'm incapable of reading the papers by the actual physicists.

The basic rule of journalism is "Simplify, then exaggerate". So while they probably don't set out to mislead, the effect, especially in the headlines they choose, which sometimes bear little relation to the substance of the article, can be misleading.

 

[exchemist]

the purpose of science is NOT to give us truth

Indeed. Its purpose is to give us predictive models of nature, so that we can understand how it seems to work.

As the models get better, we may approach "truth" asymptotically - which is to say we probably will never quite get there.

 

[PureX]

I'm assuming you believe that we have a pretty good understanding of how gravity works on earth due to our application of the scientific method, and that it contributes to your understanding of gravity on a personal level... The scientific understanding of gravity seems to be a thing everyone is willing to accept as a pretty accurate representation of how gravity works in the reality we perceive (minus some tin foil hat types).

But the reality we perceive is not reality. It is an imaginary facsimile generated in our minds by correlating and integrating the very limited information our bodies gather from direct interaction with the 'world around us'. Everything we know about gravity is functional, and relative. And yet we blindly deign it to be 'truth' because we can't really know the truth. All we can ever know is how things appear to function via our very limited experience and understanding of them. Science is not a pathway to truth. It is only a pathway to relative physical functionality. But the 'believers', believe that it is, because they believe that the truth of existence is limited to and by it's physicality.

Where is that disconnection between a theory being worthy of belief or not in your eyes?

"Belief" is the problem. It's a kind of insanity in that it's based on the denial of our profound ignorance (unknowing) as human beings. To 'believe' is to deny and ignore that ignorance and to pretend one has found the 'truth' in spite of it.

"I believe that when I drive to the store, today, I will not be injured in a car accident". Yet as a human being, I cannot possibly know this to be so. My believing that it's a truth does not make it a truth. Belief is a form of self-deception. And to deliberately deceive ourselves about the truth is a form of insanity.

 

[PureX]

When I use science, I can fly in the sky at hundreds of miles per hour, or talk to someone on the other side of the world, or calculate vast equations, or reliably cure infections. Can I do any of that with religion, or with prayers? Absolutely not.

You could do all of those things, and other amazing things, too. Because religion doesn't negate physical functionality. Neither do philosophy, or art; two other major categories of human endeavor that seek to know the truth of 'what is'.

Science may not be perfect, but it's a lot better than the resounding zero that religions offer instead.

The fact that you think this is an 'either/or' situation implies that you neither understand science, nor religion. And the fact that there are theists who also think it's an either/or situation mitigates no one's ignorance, here.

You say science can only do things "in terms of physicality." Point me to something that isn't part of the physical world, and I'll be impressed with the utility of religion.

Sure: honor, justice, beauty, mathematics, metaphor, humor, perfection, .... the list is long. These are all examples of the transcendence of physicality: wherein the results transcend the possibilities within the collective sum of the parts. Life from inanimate matter. Consciousness from life. Relative value from consciousness. All results that far transcend the mere physicality from which they emerged.

Even things like consciousness and emotions are physical processes according to all the evidence, and can be affected physically by chemicals or head trauma.

Why do you assume that to exist, they should be unaffected by the physicality from which they emerge? Existence is a singular event taking place. Everything effects and is effected by everything else within the whole of the (singular) event. The point, ere, is that event is not just physical. It's also metaphysical, and all the above phenomenological examples bear that out.

If you point to things like morality, meaning, hope, or purpose, those are all words that describe certain subjective opinions.

All reality and truth is, to us, just "subjective opinion". That is the inevitable result of the human condition. We cannot escape or avoid this.

Some religions appeal to some people but not others per their individual preferences. Just like ice cream flavors or music genres.

How is this relevant? Religion, art, and philosophy appeal more to some people than science does. So what?

Science has absolutely not replaced gods, nor is it anything like a religion. Unless you just want to call induction a religion?

'Scientism' has replaced theism for many self-proclaimed atheists. 'Scientism' is not science. It's an ideology based on the presumption that existence is defined by and limited to it's physicality, and therefor the scientific method must be the only viable means of humanity gaining knowledge of truth.

Sound familiar?

 

[PureX]

the purpose of science is NOT to give us truth

What is the purpose of science, do you think? And why do so many people think scientists are seeking "truth"?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What about competitive topics, such as panspermia vs. abiogenesis vs. creation? How do you choose which one is correct when they could all be probable?

Oh my ...

 

[Polymath257]

But the reality we perceive is not reality. It is an imaginary facsimile generated in our minds by correlating and integrating the very limited information our bodies gather from direct interaction with the 'world around us'.

But we are not limited to the information provided by our senses. We can detect radio waves that we cannot see. We can detect ultrasound that we cannot hear. We can detect atoms that we cannot see.

We get a lot of information that is related to reality. it may not give a complete picture, but what we have is a picture that can be tested to see if it works.

Everything we know about gravity is functional, and relative.And yet we blindly deign it to be 'truth' because we can't really know the truth.

Being functional means it is at least a good approximation to some aspects of reality.

We don't blindly deign it to be truth. We test it and check alternatives and see what works and what does not. Since truth is *defined* as what works, that isn't a blind characterization.

Unless, that is, you have an alternative definition of the word 'truth' that goes beyond 'working in every possible situation'.

All we can ever know is how things appear to function via our very limited experience and understanding of them. Science is not a pathway to truth. It is only a pathway to relative physical functionality.

But since the truth functions, finding something that functions provides an approximation to some aspects of the truth. To ignore that is to put blinders on to what we *can* discover while complaining we can't discover everything.

But the 'believers', believe that it is, because they believe that the truth of existence is limited to and by it's physicality.

It's more that everything that exists reduces down to some physical process ultimately.

Sure: honor, justice, beauty, mathematics, metaphor, humor, perfection, .... the list is long. These are all examples of the transcendence of physicality: wherein the results transcend the possibilities within the collective sum of the parts.

Except that all of those are conventions we humans adopt and are ultimately physical processes. Math, for example, is a language we use to help us understand the world. Justice is related to our sense of fairness, etc. All are ultimately senses we have that are based on physical processes in the brain.

They do NOT 'transcend' physicality. They are part of how humans express their physicality.

 

[Polymath257]

What is the purpose of science, do you think? And why do so many people think scientists are seeking "truth"?

Well, most people don't know much about science or its methods. For a scientist, truth is *defined* by models that predict the results of observation. So, in that sense, scientists search for truth. But it is best said that they search for predictive models that can be tested through observation.

But you reject the 'functional' definition of truth. Yet you fail to give a workable definition that isn't ultimately based on functionality.

 

[PureX]

But we are not limited to the information provided by our senses. We can detect radio waves that we cannot see. We can detect ultrasound that we cannot hear. We can detect atoms that we cannot see.

Extending our senses mechanically does not significantly change anything. We are still standing on the receiving end of those machines. And we are still creating the machines with that purpose in mind.

We get a lot of information that is related to reality. it may not give a complete picture, but what we have is a picture that can be tested to see if it works.

A functional opinion is still an opinion. And a functional opinion about functionality is basically just circular self-justification. None of this has much of anything to do with the truth of existence.

Being functional means it is at least a good approximation to some aspects of reality.

We can't know that. All physical function means is that some theory or other functions, physically (at the moment and under the circumstances). What that has to do with reality (apart from what we imagine reality to be) remains unknown.

Functionality is good. We humans like functionality a lot. But we may well function ourselves right into oblivion, because existence is clearly about more than just functionality.

We don't blindly deign it to be truth. We test it and check alternatives and see what works and what does not. Since truth is *defined* as what works, that isn't a blind characterization.

Truth could be defined as "wetness", and we would then possess the truth every time it rained. But that's just semantic nonsense. The truth is 'what is' (as opposed to what is not). And 'what is' clearly includes far more than just what functions, theoretically.

Unless, that is, you have an alternative definition of the word 'truth' that goes beyond 'working in every possible situation'.

Stated.

But since the truth functions, finding something that functions provides an approximation to some aspects of the truth. To ignore that is to put blinders on to what we *can* discover while complaining we can't discover everything.

Function, functions. That's about as much truth as we can derive from it. Recognizing this gives us lots of power, but very little truth. So little, that we haven't a clue what to do with all that power.

It's more that everything that exists reduces down to some physical process ultimately.

But it doesn't. What it all reduces down to is energy and limitation. These are what propel that physical process that results in the great 'what is'.

Except that all of those are conventions we humans adopt and are ultimately physical processes.

That ultimately transcend physical process.

Math, for example, is a language we use to help us understand the world.

A language derived from our ability to cognate and represent physical existence from a metaphysical perspective.

Justice is related to our sense of fairness, etc. All are ultimately senses we have that are based on physical processes in the brain.

Physical processes that are being transcended by the results: i.e., metaphysical cognition.

They do NOT 'transcend' physicality. They are part of how humans express their physicality.

They transcend the sum of the possibilities extant in the physicality from which it (cognition) emerged. You are presuming that transcendence must be absolute, to be transcendent at all. That it must become absolutely non-dependent on the physicality from which it emerged. But that presumption denies the nature of existence, itself (as a singular, whole, event), and therefor denies the possibility of transcendence, ipso facto. You have effectively defined transcendence out of the realm of existential possibility. That's not an argument. That's just a self-fulfilling and perpetuating bias.

 

[Polymath257]

Extending our senses mechanically does not significantly change anything. We are still standing on the receiving end of those machines. And we are still creating the machines with that purpose in mind.

That sounds like a positive to me.

A functional opinion is still an opinion. And a functional opinion about functionality is basically just circular self-justification. None of this has much of anything to do with the truth of existence.

And that is where we disagree. The information we get comes from reality, so it gives information about reality. It doesn't give *complete* information, to be sure, but it does give us something other than mere opinion.

Functionality may be all we can have, so let's at least get that.

We can't know that. All physical function means is that some theory or other functions, physically (at the moment and under the circumstances). What that has to do with reality (apart from what we imagine reality to be) remains unknown.

Except that we know those things that are *not* functional are definitely NOT true. And, again, since the information comes from reality, it gives us *some* information about reality.

Functionality is good. We humans like functionality a lot. But we may well function ourselves right into oblivion, because existence is clearly about more than just functionality.

Well, our emotions are often not very functional, if that is what you mean. But reality, as opposed to mere appearances, is precisely what is functional.

Truth could be defined as "wetness", and we would then possess the truth every time it rained. But that's just semantic nonsense. The truth is 'what is' (as opposed to what is not). And 'what is' clearly includes far more than just what functions, theoretically.

Except that none of the exmaples you gave have anything to do with truth: beauty, math, justice, etc. Those aren't *truths*. They are opinions. And they are opinions *because* they are not functional.

Stated.
Function, functions. That's about as much truth as we can derive from it. Recognizing this gives us lots of power, but very little truth. So little, that we haven't a clue what to do with all that power.

I disagree. It gives us truth and knowledge, but it doesn't give us wisdom. Those are very different things.

But it doesn't. What it all reduces down to is energy and limitation. These are what propel that physical process that results in the great 'what is'.
That ultimately transcend physical process.

Only in our opinion.

A language derived from our ability to cognate and represent physical existence from a metaphysical perspective.

Not even close. math is the study of formal systems. As such, it is a type of language we can use. Metaphysics is irrelevant to it.

Physical processes that are being transcended by the results: i.e., metaphysical cognition.

Sounds like a self-contradiction to me.

They transcend the sum of the possibilities extant in the physicality from which it (cognition) emerged. You are presuming that transcendence must be absolute, to be transcendent at all. That it must become absolutely non-dependent on the physicality from which it emerged. But that presumption denies the nature of existence, itself (as a singular, whole, event), and therefor denies the possibility of transcendence, ipso facto. You have effectively defined transcendence out of the realm of existential possibility. That's not an argument. That's just a self-fulfilling and perpetuating bias.

Than what do *you* mean by transcendent? As far as I can see, it is a null word representing our ignorance and ego.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Indeed. Its purpose is to give us predictive models of nature, so that we can understand how it seems to work.

As the models get better, we may approach "truth" asymptotically - which is to say we probably will never quite get there.

it is as you say

i visualize that we will never get to real “truth” either.

because if we did, we would be God

but we can keep getting closer, forever

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

What is the purpose of science, do you think? And why do so many people think scientists are seeking "truth"?

how people think (most don’t imo) is definitely a good question

when you find the answer let us know

 

[night912]

The problem with science is that what we look for, and how we look, determines to a very great extent what we find, and what we don't. And yet the vast majority of humans are completely oblivious of this, and so sadly presume that science is giving us "answers". Science has no answers. All it can tell us is what works and what doesn't in relation to the questions we ask. And it can only do that in terms of physicality. So it really isn't telling us much, and even less so in regards to "truth".

But science has become the replacement for 'the gods', for some folks. And they believe in it with religious ferocity.

So basically what you're saying is that science does give us answers. Got it.