Science

[Daniel Nicholson]

Just so we are all on the same page excerpts from Wikipedia.


Definition: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

3 Disciplines Modern Science:
- Natural sciences (e.g., biology, chemistry, and physics), which study nature in the broadest sense;
- Social sciences (e.g., economics, psychology, and sociology), which study individuals and societies; and
- Formal sciences (e.g., logic, mathematics, and theoretical computer science), which deal with symbols governed by rules


The Scientific Method:
- Empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science;
- Careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed (given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation); and
- Formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings.

Practical Impacts:

 

[The Hammer]

Uhm.. sure.

But what are we debating?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just so we are all on the same page excerpts from Wikipedia.


Definition: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

3 Disciplines Modern Science:
- Natural sciences (e.g., biology, chemistry, and physics), which study nature in the broadest sense;
- Social sciences (e.g., economics, psychology, and sociology), which study individuals and societies; and
- Formal sciences (e.g., logic, mathematics, and theoretical computer science), which deal with symbols governed by rules


The Scientific Method:
- Empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science;
- Careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed (given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation); and
- Formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings.

Practical Impacts:
View attachment 61656

I'm on board.

 

[F1fan]

Uhm.. sure.

But what are we debating?

This is a rebuttal to the basic "science is a religion" type attitudes.

And it clarifies that the "I have a belief so it is a theory that invalidates certain things about science" attitudes are not valid.

 

[Brian2]

Just so we are all on the same page excerpts from Wikipedia.


Definition: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

3 Disciplines Modern Science:
- Natural sciences (e.g., biology, chemistry, and physics), which study nature in the broadest sense;
- Social sciences (e.g., economics, psychology, and sociology), which study individuals and societies; and
- Formal sciences (e.g., logic, mathematics, and theoretical computer science), which deal with symbols governed by rules


The Scientific Method:
- Empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science;
- Careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed (given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation); and
- Formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings.

Practical Impacts:
View attachment 61656

Does that mean that science only studies the natural world?
How is it known where to draw the line between the natural and supernatural world?

 

[F1fan]

Does that mean that science only studies the natural world?
How is it known where to draw the line between the natural and supernatural world?

Well the natural world has the advantage of existing. That's a huge line right there.

 

[Brian2]

Well the natural world has the advantage of existing. That's a huge line right there.

Does that mean that anything that exists is presumed to be natural and so any explanations are also presumed to be natural?

 

[ppp]

Does that mean that anything that exists is presumed to be natural and so any explanations are also presumed to be natural?

Well, we have evidence of the natural. How can we consider the supernatural, until we have evidence of that?

 

[F1fan]

Does that mean that anything that exists is presumed to be natural

Yes, because things that exist are considered part of nature. Imaginary things are imaginary.

and so any explanations are also presumed to be natural?

Explanations of natural things are natural, yes. Also called science.

 

[F1fan]

Well, we have evidence of the natural. How can we consider the supernatural, until we have evidence of that?

So far supernatural equates to imaginary.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Does that mean that science only studies the natural world?
How is it known where to draw the line between the natural and supernatural world?

Once someone finds any sort of evidence for the supernatural world we can start studying it.

 

[Brian2]

Well, we have evidence of the natural. How can we consider the supernatural, until we have evidence of that?

So it is true that everything is going to be presumed to be natural and analysed through that lens.

 

[ppp]

So it is true that everything is going to be presumed to be natural and analysed through that lens.

Just like everything is going to be presumed not to be schnelgorb and analyzed the the lens.

 

[Brian2]

Yes, because things that exist are considered part of nature. Imaginary things are imaginary.


Explanations of natural things are natural, yes. Also called science.

So things which are possibly supernatural are presumed to be natural and analysed as if they are, with naturalistic answers as the only possible answers.

 

[ppp]

So things which are possibly supernatural are presumed to be natural and analysed as if they are, with naturalistic answers as the only possible answers.

Until someone brings evidence of the not natural. Yes. What's the problem there?

 

[Brian2]

Once someone finds any sort of evidence for the supernatural world we can start studying it.

So as I asked, how does anyone know where to draw the line?

 

[QuestioningMind]

So as I asked, how does anyone know where to draw the line?

We draw the line at things that we can find verifiable evidence for. If someone were to find verifiable evidence that say magical pixies actually exist then science would begin trying to figure out exactly what magical pixies are, where they came from, and what the extent of their abilities were. But until someone can provide any sort of verifiable evidence that such pixies are even real, what could a scientist possibly study? There are far too many verified phenomenon to explore to be wasting time on things that are probably imaginary.

 

[Brian2]

We draw the line at things that we can find verifiable evidence for. If someone were to find verifiable evidence that say magical pixies actually exist then science would begin trying to figure out exactly what magical pixies are, where they came from, and what the extent of their abilities were. But until someone can provide any sort of verifiable evidence that such pixies are even real, what could a scientist possibly study? There are far too many verified phenomenon to explore to be wasting time on things that are probably imaginary.

In the meantime things that are supernatural get analysed as natural and falsely verified as natural.
An example might be our consciousness.
An example of an area where most scientists would not be able or be game enough to claim supernatural, but which is evidence for the supernatural, is OBEs in NDEs. Scientists have the same biases against the supernatural or fear of being seen as heretical by other scientists, as religious leaders had against some scientific discoveries back in the day.
Near-Death Experiences Evidence for Their Reality

 

[F1fan]

So things which are possibly supernatural are presumed to be natural and analysed as if they are, with naturalistic answers as the only possible answers.

Possibly supernatural? There is no known supernatural phenomenon known to exist.

 

[Brian2]

Until someone brings evidence of the not natural. Yes. What's the problem there?

There is a problem of defining things as natural when they are not.
The supernatural would have to interact with the natural world to be detected and when the natural world is seen to have a measurable reaction to something, that reaction can be seen as the cause. An example might be consciousness and neuroscience.
So in this case science ends up bringing the woowoo into science and defining it as the natural, using fantastic reasoning about how dead matter might be able to be conscious.