What do You Think Science is...

[Audie]

Wasn't meant to be derogatory or a cheap shot. I don't see it offensively.

It is profoundly offensive.

You really dont know why?

 

[Audie]

Science is discovering facts about the environment -and so how to interact with it -beginning at the perspective of the ones experiencing the environment.

Religion is -ideally -access to the recorded and active source of knowledge -and so how to interact with the environment -which could essentially negate the need for reverse-engineering (but aid greatly in creation).

"The tree of life" includes all that science does not yet know (except perhaps things yet to be created).

The existence of God would mean one would be in the position to offer life after death, etc., for all -whereas science might figure out immortality, but it would not do any good for those who existed before.

What knowledge is that?

 

[The Hammer]

It is profoundly offensive.

You really dont know why?

Offensive to you.

No, I really don't care why.

You find it offensive, I do not.

 

[blü 2]

Wasn't meant to be derogatory or a cheap shot. I don't see it offensively.

"Scientism " is a dismissive word meaning "blind and uncomprehending reliance on science,"

So it certainly isn't flattery.

 

[lukethethird]

Science still requires some leaps of faith (assumptions to be made that can't be verified). So it's a belief in itself. A much more verifiable belief system, but a belief nonetheless.

Scientism.

Science draws from conclusions that are based on evidence, when having evidence, faith is not required, so compare that to faith based beliefs that are drawn from whatever appeals to our feelings and prejudices.

 

[The Hammer]

"Scientism " is a dismissive word meaning "blind and uncomprehending reliance on science,"

So it certainly isn't flattery.

Well "excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.", But again, I don't see this as inherently a bad thing. It's got pros and cons like anything else.
It's a philosophy.

Edit:

 

[lukethethird]

Offensive to you.

No, I really don't care why.

You find it offensive, I do not.

Don't mention scientism, I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it, people are really scensitive about that on this forum. Apparantly scientism has a cult following on this forum, Purex will be happy to tell you all about it.

 

[The Hammer]

It's clearly not the philosophy of science,

Not THE philosophy.

A philosophy.

 

[blü 2]

Not THE philosophy.

A philosophy.

Sigh.

 

[The Hammer]

Sigh.

Same.

 

[firedragon]

Science draws from conclusions that are based on evidence, when having evidence, faith is not required, so compare that to faith based beliefs that are drawn from whatever appeals to our feelings and prejudices.

Everyone has faith, belief, and prejudices. Science vs religion is a false dichotomy created by people who wish to do it for whatever reason. Its a strawman. Its a bogus argument made up to feel good about one's self.

 

[PureX]

Nothing like a religious fanatic splaining it all, that nasty reason, objective evidence, empericism, why can't people just believe in a God without evidence and be done with it?

I'm not religious, and I don't care if you "believe in" gods or not. But I understand this was the only response you could muster.

 

[Audie]

"Scientism " is a dismissive word meaning "blind and uncomprehending reliance on science,"

So it certainly isn't flattery.

It goes way beyond dismissive.

That, and the thing about "a belief" both are
about science / scientific thought being opposite to what is claimed.

Dont tell anyone who does not want to know.
For lo, to want to know is a step onto the
primrose path to comprehension.

 

[PureX]

Everyone has faith, belief, and prejudices. Science vs religion is a false dichotomy created by people who wish to do it for whatever reason. Its a strawman. Its a bogus argument made up to feel good about one's self.

Mostly, yes. Since they don't address the same existential realms. There is no reason to pit them against each other unless one is foolish enough to presume these realms of being, compete. Or worse, that only one is legitimate.

 

[Audie]

Everyone has faith, belief, and prejudices. Science vs religion is a false dichotomy created by people who wish to do it for whatever reason. Its a strawman. Its a bogus argument made up to feel good about one's self.

Not everyone is into such gross equivocation.
Many prefer their words to mean something.

 

[PureX]

Science draws conclusions that are based on evidence, when having evidence, faith is not required, so compare that to faith based beliefs that are drawn from whatever appeals to our feelings and prejudices.

Real science doesn't generate any conclusions. It simply explores the perceived possibilities by testing their functionality. If they function, they function. If they don't, they don't. Either way, the result presents us with a new set of possibilities to test. And so one.

Drawing conclusions is unscientific, as any real scientist will tell you. It's just another bias to avoid, and an example of 'scientism' - to assume that science pursues and produces 'truth'.

 

[Audie]

Real science doesn't generate any conclusions. It simply explores the perceived possibilities by testing their functionality. If they function, they function. If they don't, they don't. Either way, the result presents us with a new set of possibilities to test. And so one.

Drawing conclusions is unscientific, as any real scientist will tell you. It's just another bias to avoid, and an example of 'scientism' - to assume that science pursues and produces 'truth'.

There is an element of dim humour in observing religionists, and divers others similarly unendowed with actual education or experience in science hold forth about " real"
science.
And who present their confusion and / or equivocation games for some sort of
deeper grasp of reality. And conclude its
they who " get it" as a result. Droll; dim humour, as noted.

" Conclusion" for example, is a word much used
in science as a few seconds of google will show, for those who failed to grace the ivy halls
and did not already know.

It is not used to mean " proof", and the occasional informal use of the word
"proof" actually does not mean the impossible,
nor provide proof that the grim chimera of
scientism stalks the land.

 

[PureX]

Results are not conclusions. Neither are hypotheses derived from those results. Scientists understand this, the scientism cult does not.

 

[Audie]

Results are not conclusions. Neither are hypotheses derived from those results. Scientists understand this, the scientism cult does not.

Just look up " conclusions" in science,
and read it.
Nobody says a hypothesis is a conclusion.
And "results" is just more equivocation.

 

[HonestJoe]

Real science doesn't generate any conclusions. It simply explores the perceived possibilities by testing their functionality. If they function, they function. If they don't, they don't. Either way, the result presents us with a new set of possibilities to test. And so one.

You'd have a stronger point if you weren't declaring a conclusion yourself here.

Conclusions are a key element of scientific method. The key point is that those conclusions aren't presented as being definitive or unchallengeable. They represent what the evidence supports as it stands, but remain open to new evidence or further study which can lead to those conclusions being corrected or even replaced.