What do You Think Science is...

[Audie]

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

Since they cannot become facts in science,
they dont become bias in science.

They become religion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

You misunderstood.

How can you use science to determine which of any two songs is the "better song"?
The answer is that you can't. Because musical taste is a subjective matter.

It's like when you use "science" to generate a picture of the "ideal beauty" of a women.
You could feed the process with plenty of pictures of models and beauty contest winners etc and then let an AI loose on that dataset and even contrast it with a second data set of "ugly" people.

The AI then spits out a generated image of the "ideal woman".
I've seen such images. They are horrible. It doesn't work. Neither would it yield a picture that all men would agree on being the "epitome of beauty".

Science, in other words, is an objective methodology to gather objective facts about the world and coming up with objective explanatory models to explain those facts in objectively verifiable ways.

It can not answer subjective questions.

Same with love. The science can show us how and why we love.

It can tell us what love is and how the mechanics of it works.
It can not tell us what we should and shouldn't love. Or could and couldn't love.

Too bad it misses the experience itself.

???

Why would a method have the experience of emotions? Or of anything for that matter?
Methodologies aren't sentient beings.

This is as nonsensical as saying that "science doesn't get thirsty".
It doesn't compute. It's invalid from start to finish.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As opposed to religion?

A good question by @9-10ths_Penguin I think.

If you wanted to contrast the two,

Science is a tool to help find objectively verifiable answers to questions about the world and provides a rigorous methodology to do so.

Religion on the other hand, pretends to have the answers even before asking the questions.

 

[The Hammer]

You misunderstood.

How can you use science to determine which of any two songs is the "better song"?
The answer is that you can't. Because musical taste is a subjective matter.

It's like when you use "science" to generate a picture of the "ideal beauty" of a women.
You could feed the process with plenty of pictures of models and beauty contest winners etc and then let an AI loose on that dataset and even contrast it with a second data set of "ugly" people.

The AI then spits out a generated image of the "ideal woman".
I've seen such images. They are horrible. It doesn't work. Neither would it yield a picture that all men would agree on being the "epitome of beauty".

Science, in other words, is an objective methodology to gather objective facts about the world and coming up with objective explanatory models to explain those facts in objectively verifiable ways.

It can not answer subjective questions.



It can tell us what love is and how the mechanics of it works.
It can not tell us what we should and shouldn't love. Or could and couldn't love.



???

Why would a method have the experience of emotions? Or of anything for that matter?
Methodologies aren't sentient beings.

This is as nonsensical as saying that "science doesn't get thirsty".
It doesn't compute. It's invalid from start to finish.

"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 subjective has no purpose for science was what I was saying. It purports that objectivity is preferred to subjective experience.

 

[Clara Tea]

As opposed to religion?

A good question by @9-10ths_Penguin I think.

If you wanted to contrast the two,

Philosophy was started by Socrates, who never wrote down any of it. His student, Plato, wrote about Socrates, and also added to the philosophy. Plato's student, Aristotle, added to philosophy. Philosophy, back then, was the study of everything.

Socrates proposed that we could learn by merely discussing. So, most of the dialogues of Socrates were long discussions in which Socrates used logic to learn.

Socrates was quite a pest, because many people were resistant to learning.

Socrates, in the Allegory of the Cave, likened knowledge (the aquisition of wisdom) to being chained in a cave, unable to see outside, but only allowed to see shadows. When shown the real world, with its light and colors, the cave dweller rejected what he saw. He said that it could not possibly be reality. That is because one must become accustomed to seeing the truth before one accepts it.

Science is much like that. Most people are not scientists, so it seems strange to them that the earth is round. They think that footage of landing on the moon was a Hollywood fake, and special effects. They don't understand that radioactive dating (for example carbon dating or iodine dating) can date artifacts. They don't think that science is the solution to diseases (like Covid vaccines). Perhaps it is too late for vaccines to help. They hear scientists talk about Global Warming, but believe, instead, the greedy lawyers of President George W. Bush, who tell them that mankind's influence on Global Warming is a hoax, and that Global Warming has happened many times in the past, and it will not result in extinction of many species, or, if it does, it is a natural process that is supposed to happen.

We are left to believe one side or the other.

On one side, we have theists, who believe in an invisible and unprovable deity. On the other side, we have PhD scientists who have had years of education, and were highly intelligent when they began, followed by decades of experimentation and experience. We have miracles of science (iphones, televisions, radar, weaponry, weather forecasts, etc). Yet, theists argue that scientists are the enemy because they keep demanding proof of the unprovable.

Socrates was such a pest that the people of Athens demanded that he either goes into exile (certain death from starvation at his age), or drink hemlock (which would at least save his wife because she wouldn't have to go into exile). Xantippi was Socrates's wife (and the word xantippi means shrew). You can understand why a pest who doesn't work would have a nagging wife.

Science is supposed to have theories because there is no choice but to believe them. However, many scientists make wild guesses. For example, Neil De Grasse Tyson insists that we are in a virtual world (like the movie Matrix). This seems like religion, not science.

Scientists who ponder why the expansion of the universe is accelerating used Friedmann's Equation to proffer the idea that "dark energy" is causing the acceleration. To me, that seems a bit like religion, rather than science, but at least it has a basis in science.

Over time, scientific theories are tested rigorously, and eventually wrong theories will be disproven. But, in the mean time, wrong theories thwart the development of right theories.

Scientists with strong reputations also thwart scientific development. For example, Cassagrian developed a different type of telescope (one that gathers more light, but doesn't magnify as much, so it is used to find distant objects), but because Newton didn't approve, it was slow to get approved.

Science also has bullies. If you try to write on a science forum, you will have other scientists try to discredit everything that you say, merely because they want to be adored, and they won't let anyone else say anything. A good way to deal with them is to find an obscure fact and get them to disagree with it, then prove it.

The cancel culture has been restricting free speech and free press. They hope to do away with the Constitutional freedoms that make America great. They use emergencies, such as the covid pandemic, to justify getting rid of anyone deemed wrong. So, Dr. Anthony Fauci said that we should not wear masks (because viruses are so small that they could slip through), then said that we should wear one mask (because covid is spit-borne and could limit how far spit of an infected person could go), then said that we should wear two masks. Anyone questioning the three answers of Fauci will find themselves banned from forums. Shouldn't everyone have a right to ask questions?

Science and religion are both threatened by the cancel culture. Our very freedom as Americans is also threatened. We would be no better than Russia behind the Iron Curtain, if we were not allowed to communicate.

Science also has some negatives. It builds weaponry of horrible destructive power (nukes, bioweapons, etc.) Sometimes experiments escape (possibly covid got out of the Wuhan Institute of Virology).

The accusation that science is impinging on religion is not right. Scientists don't keep religious people from being kind, generous, and caring. Science might reinforce religious ideas. For example, a few months ago, a scientific study determined that the walls of Jericho were knocked down by an icy meteorite (which melted, so there is no rock debris). By heating to outrageous temperatures, and impacting with great speed and force, it created a layer of jumbled ash five feet deep, and it hit 14 miles from Jericho, with ash all the way from there. In the ash were tiny diamonds, and diamonds are only formed under great temperature and pressure. A forest fire could not form diamonds, nor is it common for a volcanic eruption. However, diamonds are found in volcanoes.

We have to forgive everyone. Some scientists are wrong. Some theists are wrong. I think that it is best to respect all sides (as long as they are not violating their own religion and making wars and torture camps, like Guantanamo, Cuba). We must constantly be on guard to point out the wrong actions of both science and religion, and help guide the world to a better future.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"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 subjective has no purpose for science was what I was saying. It purports that objectivity is preferred to subjective experience.

I'm at a loss why you consider this a problem.

Science can tell you how your sense of taste works.
But it can't tell you what tastes "good".

So?

 

[Clara Tea]

Science is a tool to help find objectively verifiable answers to questions about the world and provides a rigorous methodology to do so.

Religion on the other hand, pretends to have the answers even before asking the questions.

So, eminent scientist, Neil De Grasse Tyson is right about us being in a virtual world (like the movie Matrix)? Should he have a reason for such a belief? Isn't that belief a religion? Aren't some unproven science proposals really religious, rather than scientific?

 

[Clara Tea]

I'm at a loss why you consider this a problem.

Science can tell you how your sense of taste works.
But it can't tell you what tastes "good".

So?

No, it can tell you that something will taste good.

A chemical with a Ramen Band (molecular resonance) of mint will taste like mint. That is because our taste buds sense molecular bonding frequencies. However, if it is a new taste (not mint), then it would be hard to determine if it tastes good.

Interestingly, a computer (with a brain scan) can interpret dreams, and tell the difference between seeing a key or a door in a dream. Dreams can also be altered by computers that can use audio to suggest things while people are dreaming.

 

[The Hammer]

I'm at a loss why you consider this a problem.

Science can tell you how your sense of taste works.
But it can't tell you what tastes "good".

So?

I never said it was a problem. It's this duality (partially) that makes it a belief system.

They believe subjective experience is not a worthwhile endeavour of exploring the world and categorizing things. It's not bad or wrong, it just is.

Edit: The OP asked what the difference was between science and religion, my answer was nothing besides subjective v objective, both require faith.

 

[Clara Tea]

"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 subjective has no purpose for science was what I was saying. It purports that objectivity is preferred to subjective experience.

Can the scientists understand what they observe? If several scientists stand around a lab rat that has an electrode in its brain, and that electrode stimulates (and simulates) sex satisfaction, they might wonder why the rat would prefer to press a button rather than eat. Hmm....why does that rat like sex? Sex might be the furthest thing on the scientists mind.

 

[Clara Tea]

I never said it was a problem. It's this duality (partially) that makes it a belief system.

They believe subjective experience is not a worthwhile endeavour of exploring the world and categorizing things. It's not bad or wrong, it just is.

Edit: The OP asked what the difference was between science and religion, my answer was nothing.

A scientist would correct himself, and find an alternate theory. A theist would continue trying to prove that he was right.

For example, the shroud of Turin was found to be too new to be the shroud of Jesus. That just encourages theists to prove that they were right all along.

 

[Clara Tea]

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.

Is love just a chemical reaction? Nope. There is more to it.

 

[Clara Tea]

Religion is typically about believing ideas "on faith", in other words, without good evidence.

Science is about believing ideas only when solid, repeatable, predictable evidence exists to support the idea.

Eminent scientist, Neil De Grasse Tyson says that we are in a virtual world (like the Matrix movie). That doesn't have good evidence. I would classify that as a religious notion, not a scientific notion (or theory).

 

[The Hammer]

A scientist would correct himself, and find an alternate theory. A theist would continue trying to prove that he was right.

For example, the shroud of Turin was found to be too new to be the shroud of Jesus. That just encourages theists to prove that they were right all along.

Some wouldn't change their minds. Many of us do though, myself included. The scientist focus' on what is objectively verifiable, the devout theist relies on subjective experience. Differing ways of working with the world.

Neither incorrect or correct.

 

[Clara Tea]

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.

I largely agree, but I think that there is more to that.

In the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy a character asked the biggest and fastest computer in the galaxy to spend billions of years finding the meaning of life. The answer was 42.

 

[Clara Tea]

Some wouldn't change their minds. Many of us do though, myself included. The scientist focus' on what is objectively verifiable, the devout theist relies on subjective experience. Differing ways of working with the world.

Neither incorrect or correct.

Even in disagreement, there might be agreement (though both the theist and atheist may not realize that). For example, theists contend that the universe is 6,000 years old, and scientists (not necessarily atheists) contend that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. Given that scientists know that time is relative, and that special relavity asserts that time dilates the faster something moves, and that general relativity asserts that time dilates in strong gravitational fields, it could be that God's time and our time agree. That is, 6000 years to God might be 13.8 billion years to us, depending on how fast God and we are moving and depending on how strong the gravity is where God is.

Also, the bible talks about a day. But the earilier translations could have meant era (not day), depending on how it is translated. Also, days are measured by the rotation of the earth, but, before the earth was created, there was no "day." Also, days were shorter years ago (slowed down by the friction of the molten core of the earth). Also, it is obvious that the earth (and other planets) sustained major impacts. Venus rotates the opposite direction, and earth's axis is tilted (resulting in seasons).

Theists contend that Jericho had its walls knocked down. Historians say that the Euphrates river was diverted, which could have undermined the walls of Jericho. But recent scientific evidence concludes that the walls of Jericho were knocked down by an icy asteroid. What a fortuitous coincidence that the walls were knocked down at the same time that it was under attack. (God did it???).

When both science and religion agree, perhaps they both are right?

 

[exchemist]

Some wouldn't change their minds. Many of us do though, myself included. The scientist focus' on what is objectively verifiable, the devout theist relies on subjective experience. Differing ways of working with the world.

Neither incorrect or correct.

But do not imagine these categories are mutually exclusive.

Just as a "motorist" is also a "pedestrian", and a baker may also be a scuba diver. People occupy many different roles in different parts of their lives.

The devout theist, if he is not an utter idiot, will understand at least some science and recognise its value in understanding the world. And plenty of scientists also have strong religious belief.

 

[exchemist]

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.

If you were being scientific you did not see a ship sailing through the air.

The facts were that you saw an optical image of what seemed to be a ship, above the horizon, by a certain number of degrees, at such and such a location and at such and such a time, under such and such weather conditions. Those are facts, provided someone else also confirmed your observation, i.e. it was not a hallucination on your part or a reflection in a pane of glass you were looking through. In fact, if you observe scientifically, you have to record exactly how you made the observation, in case it turns out that your observation was due to an artifact of some kind, such as a reflections in a pane of glass.

But calling it "a ship sailing through the air" is a piece of interpretation.

The fact that you saw this image might well have led you to start thinking how such a thing arises, I agree, given that ships do not normally float about in the air. And then you might think about mirages in the desert and wonder if something could cause an opposite effect at sea, and then you would quickly realise the sea is colder than the the air and hence what was responsible. If you thought scientifically, I mean.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, eminent scientist, Neil De Grasse Tyson is right about us being in a virtual world (like the movie Matrix)? Should he have a reason for such a belief? Isn't that belief a religion? Aren't some unproven science proposals really religious, rather than scientific?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[exchemist]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm glad it's not just me.

(But Tyson is not someone I set a lot of store by, either. He's far too glib and cocksure for me.)