What do You Think Science is...

[The Hammer]

More rong to those noted above

Mmk

 

[PureX]

I guess I would say that science is mankind's response to the question; 'how does the world work?', while religion is mankind's response to the question; 'why does the world work like this?'. The former asks about function, while the later asks about purpose.

 

[Audie]

Mmk

AIAR

 

[Audie]

I guess I would say that science is mankind's response to the question; 'how does the world work?', while religion is mankind's response to the question; 'why does the world work like this?'. The former asks about function, while the later asks about purpose.

Heres your opportunity to clarify what
"Scientism" means.
And how its used in this forum

 

[exchemist]

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.

In the realm of science, i.e. understanding of the physical world by application of the scientific method, sure. But that's not scientism. Scientism would be if they fail to recognise the limits of that realm.

What I'm saying is they do recognise those limits perfectly well. When I went out with a girl, I would leave science at home, or at work. When I listen to a concert or sing, I do the same.

 

[ppp]

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 that's form a personal view but it more or less matches the NAS and RS data

Your position is that the 2400 most elite and prestigious scientists (and the people you know). is better representative of the general population of scientists than an organization whose fellows and members come from the general population. Is that correct? If I have misrepresented you, please correct me. If not, then can you see why I am dubious?

 

[ChristineM]

Your position is that the 2400 most elite and prestigious scientists (and the people you know). is better representative of the general population of scientists than an organization whose fellows and members come from the general population. Is that correct? If I have misrepresented you, please correct me. If not, then can you see why I am dubious?

No it is not correct, my position is that the NAS, RS and my own experience disagree with the PEW data.

Which is taken locally (america) that trends not to be representative of world feeling on religion and accounts for just 5% of the world population.

 

[Audie]

In the realm of science, i.e. understanding of the physical world by application of the scientific method, sure. But that's not scientism. Scientism would be if they fail to recognise the limits of that realm.

What I'm saying is they do recognise those limits perfectly well. When I went out with a girl, I would leave science at home, or at work. When I listen to a concert or sing, I do the same.

Do you find scientists are in the business
of " facts"?

 

[exchemist]

Do you find scientists are in the business
of " facts"?

When making observations, certainly. That's why results have to be reproducible: so that they can be taken as fact.

But theories are not facts: they are models.

 

[PureX]

Heres your opportunity to clarify what
"Scientism" means.
And how its used in this forum

Believing that the process referred to as 'evolution' is the 'real truth' because science says so, is called "scientism". First, science does not proclaim any truth, EVER. Second, science does not provide proof of ANYTHING. And finally, drawn conclusions are not within the purview of science. So anyone who think that science has concluded, via overwhelming proof, that "evolution is true", has no idea what science is, and has instead fallen under the cult-like spell of 'scientism'. And there are many posting here that clearly make these kinds of proclamations, regularly. All the while claiming that 'scientism' is make-believe. Because, of course, they think the nonsense that they believe and post IS SCIENCE. When in fact, it is 'scientism'.

 

[Audie]

Believing that the process referred to as 'evolution' is the 'real truth' because science says so, is called "scientism". First, science does not proclaim any truth, EVER. Second, science does not provide proof of ANYTHING. And finally, drawn conclusions are not within the purview of science. So anyone who think that science has concluded, via overwhelming proof, that "evolution is true", has no idea what science is, and has instead fallen under the cult-like spell of 'scientism'. And there are many posting here that clearly make these kinds of proclamations, regularly. All the while claiming that 'scientism' is make-believe. Because, of course, they think the nonsense that they believe and post IS SCIENCE. When in fact, it is 'scientism'.

I wish you would cry "SCIENTISM" when you
detect it.
But otherwise, good post, thanks.

 

[PureX]

When making observations, certainly. That's why results have to be reproducible: so that they can be taken as fact.

But theories are not facts: they are models.

Observations are not facts, either. As a scientist, you should know this.

 

[Audie]

When making observations, certainly. That's why results have to be reproducible: so that they can be taken as fact.

But theories are not facts: they are models.

And the purity of "epistemological
facts" in science?

 

[exchemist]

Observations are not facts, either. As a scientist, you should know this.

They are as close as we can get.

 

[exchemist]

And the purity of "epistemological
facts" in science?

Not something we ever discuss.

 

[Audie]

Observations are not facts, either. As a scientist, you should know this.

He didnt say that.

But as an o-chem remarked to me,
" i would only use " fact" in a sentence like,
"Its a fact that this is my data."

 

[Audie]

Not something we ever discuss.

Do you think they exist

 

[PureX]

They are as close as we can get.

The mistake, here, is in presuming a relationship. I once observed a ship over the horizon sailing through the air. It was not, however, a fact that it was sailing through the air. Nor was there any need for me to presume it to be. In fact, by NOT presuming the observation to be a fact I was more easily able to conceive of OTHER possibilities for the observation.

Science is all about exploring the possibilities. NOT establishing the facts. Understanding this is crucial to understanding the difference between science and 'scientism'.

 

[exchemist]

The mistake, here, is in presuming a relationship. I once observed a ship over the horizon sailing through the air. It was not, however, a fact that it was sailing through the air. Nor was there any need for me to presume it to be. In fact, by NOT presuming the observation to be fact, I was more easily able to conceive of OTHER possibilities for the observation.

Science is all about exploring the possibilities. NOT establishing the facts. Understanding this is crucial to understanding the difference between science and 'scientism'.

Your error here is in confusing the observation with one interpretation of what it signifies.

 

[PureX]

Your error here is in confusing the observation with one interpretation of what it signifies.

There was no interpretation, or significance being applied. I saw (observed) a ship sailing through the air. It was not an interpretation, nor a sign of anything.

Nor was it a fact.

It was a physical mystery that my mind immediately began to seek possible resolutions, for. That's the doorway to the realm of science. That conjuring of possibilities, and seeking to test them in practice. Facts aren't facts, they're just more possibilities to be explored, and tested.

When observations become facts in science, they become a bias.