What do You Think Science is...

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

No, it can't, because your preferences are a matter of personal opinion, not a matter of objective fact.
At best, it can make a few general statements, but even then it's hardly objective or universal.

Like for example: it's a safe assumption that most people will like chocolate sweets, but plenty of people simply dislike the taste of chocolate.

These are not matters of objective fact.

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.

Explaining why something tastes the way it does, is exactly what I said: it can explain how your sense of taste works but it can't tell you what tastes "good".

Like for instance, I don't like mint. Except in a mojito. When it's covered in sugar and rum.

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.

So?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

You lost me.
What are you claiming is the "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.

That's a misrepresentation. The word "worthwhile" is not the correct term to use.
The actual truth is that science can't explore the world like that because science works through objectivity.

Nothing about science has anything to say about it being "worthwhile" or not.
Science is about studying the objective, commonly observable, external world.

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

This is simply false.
To say both require faith is simply not true.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Such as?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Your subjective religious experience might tell you that you can jump from the Eiffel tower and live to tell the story.

Scientific inquiry would conclude that you won't and that you're better off taking the stairs or elevator.

And at the end of the day, only one will be standing to tell the story.

One of these resulted in a very incorrect conclusion.
The other in a very correct one.

Objective evidence trumps subjective experience. Every. Single. Time.

 

[exchemist]

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.

Raman. Ramen is a noodle soup.

But tell me, why do you mention Raman spectroscopy in this connection? My understanding is that taste and smell are due to chemical binding to olfactory receptors, not to vibrational frequency of the molecules. Or is there something special about mint that I'm not aware of?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.)

I like him because he's very entertaining.
But people tend to forget that scientists are just people also.

And when a scientist, like him, gives some entertaining lecture or writes a popular / commercial book etc... that just because he is a scientist, not everything that comes out of his mouth or pen is therefor "science" or "scientifically valid".

When talking / writing, he'll also express personal opinions, hypotheticals, unscientific ideas, etc.

In the end, their science is found in their science publications.
When Newton was writing about Alchemy, he wasn't doing any science.

Scientists are people too. And they can be just as irrational as any other human.
They are not infallible authorities. Not everything that comes out of their mouths is Truth (tm).

 

[exchemist]

Your subjective religious experience might tell you that you can jump from the Eiffel tower and live to tell the story.

Scientific inquiry would conclude that you won't and that you're better off taking the stairs or elevator.

And at the end of the day, only one will be standing to tell the story.

One of these resulted in a very incorrect conclusion.
The other in a very correct one.

Objective evidence trumps subjective experience. Every. Single. Time.

On the other hand, you cannot enjoy anything in life without subjective experience. So it has its place, if we are being honest about things.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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.

No, not really. It's a methodology for determining how the universe works... the best methodology humans have come up with thus far. No leaps of faith are required.

 

[exchemist]

No, not really. It's a methodology for determining how the universe works... the best methodology humans have come up with thus far. No leaps of faith are required.

Einstein would not entirely agree, it seems:

Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

From: Albert Einstein, Science and Religion (1939)

This is what I was thinking of in post 8. He makes the point that science requires faith in the existence of an order in nature that is simple enough for human beings to comprehend. (Though perhaps he placed more faith in determinism than has proved justified.)

 

[robocop (actually)]

As opposed to religion?

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

If you wanted to contrast the two,

In my opinion religion is the motivation and science is the application.

 

[osgart]

Science deals with how the external world behaves, and what can be predicted from observing its regularities and patterns. It's descriptions of what we can know, or extrapolate from the environments it studies.

Intrinsic functions or purposes of why existence is the way it is falls to the realm of philosophy and religion. Science can only describe extrinsic behaviours. Intrinsic properties such as consciousness cannot be explained adequately by science nor religion. The only way we know of consciousness is through our subjective experience of it.

Whether it's science, or philosophy there are axiomatic assumptions made in the kinds of things that are known. Religion assumes knowledge without being able to demonstrate or verify what it claims to know. Science within it's limitations can verify and predict behaviours of the natural world accurately.

If there are intrinsic properties to the natural world, or if there are purposes in existence science will never able discover those kinds of things. You would have to defer to philosophy, or an attempt at religion.

 

[lukethethird]

As opposed to religion?
If you wanted to contrast the two,

As opposed to religion, science is useful.

 

[firedragon]

As opposed to religion?

Why?

 

[rational experiences]

A human man.

One man any man natural man is first.

It takes one man to be a leader of other men. One man X men hence have to agree.

The one man first theist was hence special the one man leader scientist.

One man the leader scientist the messenger gets life sacrificed the leader. As returned creation advice to human life on earth.

Science on earth by one man theories.

Reason. I want to know.

Not I do know or will know... I want.

So he pretended he theories on behalf of existed created creation and was life sacrificed proven wrong.

Science a cult human group institution. Self human organised. Bullying tactics it's chosen human behaviour.

Groups who collectively by human status ego form groups status humans to false preach human ideologies.

Try to argue about their status they use intellect human as their argument. What I invented proved I knew.

Is not science. It is invention.

 

[rational experiences]

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.

In nature which is the first state music is biologically heard as music.

You try to take it apart to state why it exists. Destroyer mentality it didn't exist taken apart first.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Einstein would not entirely agree, it seems:

Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

From: Albert Einstein, Science and Religion (1939)

This is what I was thinking of in post 8. He makes the point that science requires faith in the existence of an order in nature that is simple enough for human beings to comprehend. (Though perhaps he placed more faith in determinism than has proved justified.)

It doesn't require faith when for centuries now it had reliably demonstrated that there is indeed an order to nature and the scientific method is the means by which we've made that determination.

 

[icehorse]

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).

I've never heard him declare that theory so absolutely. What I've heard him say is that the virtual world theory would be very difficult to disprove.

That said, perhaps I haven't heard him be as absolute as you're suggesting.

For the sake of discussion, if I'm correct, then his statement is very scientific. He's saying "Here's a theory. We don't have any evidence to disprove it, and we can also conclude that it would be very difficult to find evidence to disprove it."

To me, the virtual world theory verges on being unfalsifiable, so I haven't spent much time thinking about it.

 

[Nakosis]

Why?

To understand more about views other than my own.

 

[rational experiences]

It doesn't require faith when for centuries now it had reliably demonstrated that there is indeed an order to nature and the scientific method is the means by which we've made that determination.

Nature exists naturally in any one body type that exists as it is its owned end. It lives survives until it dies a second destructive end. Two ends one is natural the other caused by effects.

First human sciences notification.

So you ask why if the environment our infinite space body refilled in by gas water mass heavens that supported life did we die.

Because earth moves through changed space on a journey same heavens but inherits not the same space.

Egotists all humans as humans first.

Then are thinkers and word users storytellers only as the egotists. The theist know it all by want a story only. As subject object is natural first.

Then you use human use of invented measures and apply those measures to living and dead destroyed bodies claiming you are intelligent.

Human assessed why life got sacrificed by non existent machines you manifested built yourself as beyond the storyteller is why science is life's destroyer.

Most of your advice was looking at dead things rationally. Or you destroy some body while taking it apart to learn.

Then you pretend a taken apart destroyed body can be put back together by thinking why you know why. Yet it remained destroyed is lying.

And you blatantly lied.

Science.

 

[nPeace]

As opposed to religion?

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

If you wanted to contrast the two,

Religion is ancient. Science is young... provided you are referring to what can be physically seen.
However, science is older than religion by far, since, 1} knowledge is older than religion, 2) mankind has been in the field of science, before religion.

Not what I have in mind, but scientists today believe religion evolved, so they consider science to be before religion.

Since "religion" and science in ancient times were both related - closer than cousins, there were no conflicts. Only agreement... at least where true religion and true science were concerned.