What do You Think Science is...

[RestlessSoul]

What do you think pottery is, as opposed to poetry?

Nah, that doesn’t work; science and religion don’t even sound the same.

I give up. Ask me one on sport…

 

[ChristineM]

I doubt that is what you hear from "most" scientists, since most scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power. Scientists and Belief.

However, science has been demonstrated as the most reliable method, that we have so far, for gaining knowledge about the universe in which we love.



However, it is true that

In this matter i wouldn't rely on PEW research when other more valid to science sources exist

The National academy of sciences (one of the most prestigious scientific institutions in America) has 93% of scientists polled to be either atheist or agnostic.

A similar survey by the Royal Society in britain returned an overwhelming result (quite similar to the NAS survey) indicating strong opposition to belief in god and the supernatural.

 

[Nakosis]

Nothing in that article claims that that is there is all there is to know about love. And no scientist I have known would claim that is all there is to it either.

In the same vein, on music, science can tell you about why tones at certain pitch intervals are concordant and others discordant. But only a 6-cylinder idiot would claim that gives you any insight into Bach's music.

Let's get real.

Who made the claim that science knows everything about love or about anything else?

That would be scientism.

 

[exchemist]

Music can be broken down to mathematics, patterns, and emotional responses via chemical messengers.

Same with love. The science can show us how and why we love. Too bad it misses the experience itself.

My point is that no scientist I have ever known would claim that that is all there is to understanding music. Have you ever met one who thought it is? I bet you haven't.

 

[exchemist]

Who made the claim that science knows everything about love or about anything else?

That would be scientism.

Nobody.

You were the one who, in post 7, said that science involves a form of belief (I agreed it does), but which you said was scientism (which I pointed out is wrong). These examples you are producing are not evidence of scientism.

I honestly think you have lost track of the discussion here.

 

[ppp]

The National academy of sciences (one of the most prestigious scientific institutions in America) has 93% of scientists polled to be either atheist or agnostic.

A similar survey by the Royal Society in britain returned an overwhelming result (quite similar to the NAS survey) indicating strong opposition to belief in god and the supernatural.

I know. But those are the elite and skew far away from the average. I chose that study over the NAS because it is much more representative. of the general population of qualified persons.

 

[George-ananda]

Science is understanding nature through the physical senses and instruments,

Religion considers the subjective experiences of man in addition including alleged psychic and clairvoyant experiences of things allegedly beyond the reach of physical senses and instruments.

Science gives us a verifiable and objective understanding. Religion is potentially capable of giving us a vastly richer and deeper understanding of reality and its purposes.

 

[ChristineM]

I know. But those are the elite and skew far away from the average. I chose that study over the NAS because it is much more representative. of the general population of qualified persons.

The general population of the bible belt perhaps. From the scientists i know, (several elite and more general researchers) i know of only 2 with a belief in god (and they both frequent these pages).

Sure thats form a personal view but it more or less matches the NAS and RS data

 

[Nakosis]

Observing the natural world to find out how it works?

So I'll put my 2 cents in.
Science is something we naturally do, discovering how something works through trial and error and redefining the questions asked using the knowledge we've discovered.

Something people forget about this second part. Questioning the truth of their understanding of what works.

Religion IMO does the first part. It tries to understand how things work based on personal experience. However what it fails to do is to question the reliability of what it has discovered.

Not to say religious folks never question the "truth" they've discovered, but at some point they stop.
Science never stops. Science takes whatever it has learned, redefines the question and asks again. Over and over. Never fully satisfied until it has exhausted all questions. Which will never happen because we continually create new questions to ask.

Why do you think most religions rely on answers given thousands of years ago?

Science is endless, infinite. Most people don't like that. They want a "truth" they can rely on. 20-30 years from now science will likely have redefined everything we currently accept as true only to find itself again being replaced by new discoveries.

Science works within its limited scope of understanding. We just have to accept that understanding will never be complete.

 

[The Hammer]

Not accurate.

Not definition,
Not your most
Not your " hear from"
The only use made in this form is perjorative

That definition of scientism came from a dictionary, don't like it take it up with them.

What I most encounter and what I hear you can't contest, so nice attempt at arguing experience.

 

[The Hammer]

My point is that no scientist I have ever known would claim that that is all there is to understanding music. Have you ever met one who thought it is? I bet you haven't.

The argument is that that particular type of qualia doesn't actually matter to them, yes. If it isn't reducible to pure data, it's subjective and of no concern.

 

[Nakosis]

Nobody.

You were the one who, in post 7, said that science involves a form of belief (I agreed it does), but which you said was scientism (which I pointed out is wrong). These examples you are producing are not evidence of scientism.

I honestly think you have lost track of the discussion here.

Um... I didn't write post 7.

 

[Audie]

That definition of scientism came from a dictionary, don't like it take it up with them.

What I most encounter and what I hear you can't contest, so nice attempt at arguing experience.

You took one piece of a definition, explicitly
unrelated to the usage of the word in this forum.
You may not need to look up " disingenuous".

You dont know, do not hear from, or know the
thinking of most scientists.

 

[exchemist]

The argument is that that particular type of qualia doesn't actually matter to them, yes. If it isn't reducible to pure data, it's subjective and of no concern.

What? Do you really think no scientist enjoys music or falls in love? Come off it. Do you actually know any scientists?

 

[exchemist]

Um... I didn't write post 7.

Oh s*** , so you didn't. It's me that is going senile, evidently! Sorry.

 

[The Hammer]

You took one piece of a definition, explicitly
unrelated to the usage of the word in this forum.
You may not need to look up " disingenuous".

You dont know, do not hear from, or know the
thinking of most scientists.

"scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality."

"Scientism is the view that science and scientific method are the best or only objective means by which people should determine normative and epistemological values, and/or that the natural sciences constitute the most authoritative worldview.[1]"

Nah, same thing, only longer.

 

[Audie]

"scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality."

"Scientism is the view that science and scientific method are the best or only objective means by which people should determine normative and epistemological values, and/or that the natural sciences constitute the most authoritative worldview.[1]"

Nah, same thing, only longer.

You didnt look up " disingenuos"?

Not that it help the other ways you are rong.

 

[The Hammer]

What? Do you really think no scientist enjoys music or falls in love? Come off it. Do you actually know any scientists?

Not what I'm saying at all.

Only that to scientists (in the realm of science) that sort of information has no meaning to science itself, because science itself is the purest expression of epistemological fact.

 

[The Hammer]

You didnt look up " disingenuos"?

No need to look up what doesn't apply

 

[Audie]

No need to look up what doesn't apply

More rong to those noted above