What do You Think Science is...

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Never said otherwise.
I was responding to someone who seems to be claiming that "religion" and "science" are just 2 paths towards answering questions about the world and that neither of them is "correct" or "incorrect".

Clearly, that's very much nonsense.

 

[AppieB]

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 is not a belief system, it is a epistemological tool/method. Far from scientism.

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

Scientism claims that, yes. But not science.

Don't most scientists agree, that the only way for us to gather knowledge, is via objective means and the scientific method?

No, I don't think most scientist would agree this is the only way to gather knowledge. They would probably agree that's it's the most reliable method to come to knowledge about the natural world, but there is more in life then just facts about the natural world.

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.

You really think think scientist's only concern is pure data? They don't have desires, no feelings and experiences that are valuble to them?
I think you're equivocating science with scientists

 

[Sheldon]

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

That would be scientism.

Generally theists or religious apologists accuse atheists of doing this. Paradoxically it is far more rare to hear an actual atheist make the claim. In fact I can't even remember ever hearing one say it. though there is probably some nut job out there somewhere who believes this of science, who also happens to not believe in any deity.

To hear some of the comments here though, one would think it was endemic among atheists, secularists and scientists.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

I have to say I am dubious that we would need anything beyond the natural or physical, in order to explain the creation and appreciation of art and music, Which to me implies that even if science doesn't understand it fully understand it now, it certainly would not be beyond the purview of scientific scrutiny. I just think some people prefer not to know the dry scientific facts behind such emotional responses.

 

[HonestJoe]

As opposed to religion?

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

If you wanted to contrast the two,

Science isn't opposed to religion.

You can't really compare or contrast the two concepts since they're as different as apples and elephants. There is very rarely any good reason for them to come in to the same discussion.

Science is a singular term for a set of formal principles, processes and methods that can be used to systematically study any observed phenomena.

Religion is a collective term for various forms of proscribed beliefs and practices.

Anything that goes in to more detail or specificity around either term isn't simply comparing science and religion as overall concepts any more (e.g. comparing the Big Bang Theory with Biblical Creationism is not the same as comparing science with religion).

 

[Audie]

Unless one has succumbed to 'scientism'. Even scientists, or supposed/wanna be scientists are not immune to the cult.

There may be cases of scientism,
perhaps they call in to Coast to Coast
following a call from a Hollow Earth
enthusiast.
Why you are concerned with this rare
mental deviancy is a bit of a mystery.

 

[Audie]

I have to say I am dubious that we would need anything beyond the natural or physical, in order to explain the creation and appreciation of art and music, Which to me implies that even if science doesn't understand it fully understand it now, it certainly would not be beyond the purview of scientific scrutiny. I just think some people prefer not to know the dry scientific facts behind such emotional responses.

We doubt there is anything supernatural about
the mysterious way ear and brain make
what we hear from vibration in the air.

 

[PureX]

There may be cases of scientism,
perhaps they call in to Coast to Coast
following a call from a Hollow Earth
enthusiast.
Why you are concerned with this rare
mental deviancy is a bit of a mystery.

It's not rare. It's all over these threads. You just haven't grasped the subtleties of it, yet. Nor the damaging implications.

 

[Ella S.]

Science is the field of applied epistemology. It is a rigorous method of approximating knowledge based on available data and experimentation, usually through empiricism and formal logic. It is the only reliable way of discovering truth.

Religion is a complex social construct based around communal identity. Originally, it referred to specific Christian denominations and sects and broadly labelled everyone else "pagan," "Moslem," or "Hebrew." As the field of anthropology distanced itself from its roots in Christian heresiology, religion took on a broader meaning to refer to a variety of cultural groups and practices.

 

[exchemist]

I have to say I am dubious that we would need anything beyond the natural or physical, in order to explain the creation and appreciation of art and music, Which to me implies that even if science doesn't understand it fully understand it now, it certainly would not be beyond the purview of scientific scrutiny. I just think some people prefer not to know the dry scientific facts behind such emotional responses.

Possibly, in theory. However, even if that happens, science will not replace the language and concepts we use to understand, appreciate and perform music.

 

[exchemist]

Never said otherwise.
I was responding to someone who seems to be claiming that "religion" and "science" are just 2 paths towards answering questions about the world and that neither of them is "correct" or "incorrect".

Clearly, that's very much nonsense.

Agreed: they address different questions.

 

[Ella S.]

I don't see Einstein's faith to be much of a leap, nor do I understand what he means by religion half the time. I think his ideas of faith and religion, at least as he applies them to himself, are very different than the common usages. I don't know if it's a language or a translation thing since English was not his first language.

Have you heard of the Is-Ought Problem?

Einstein believed that science is what gives us the "is" and that religion is what gives us the "ought." This has been referred to as Non-Overlapping Magisteria, or NOMA.

 

[firedragon]

Science is not a belief system, it is a epistemological tool/method. Far from scientism.

Scientism claims that, yes. But not science.

No, I don't think most scientist would agree this is the only way to gather knowledge. They would probably agree that's it's the most reliable method to come to knowledge about the natural world, but there is more in life then just facts about the natural world.

You really think think scientist's only concern is pure data? They don't have desires, no feelings and experiences that are valuble to them?
I think you're equivocating science with scientists

Interesting.

 

[Link]

As opposed to religion?

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

If you wanted to contrast the two,

Science can be used by all religions, but there is currently a more ideological branch of it that is similar to me to religions.

 

[ppp]

Science can be used by all religions, but there is currently a more ideological branch of it that is similar to me to religions.

That is pretty vague.

 

[Link]

That is pretty vague.

It was meant to be.

 

[ppp]

It was meant to be.

I suspected as much.

 

[Muffled]

As opposed to religion?

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

If you wanted to contrast the two,

I believe science is the attempt to learn things by exploration and experiment as opposed to learning things by reading.

I believe religion is not about learning things. It is about knowing God through His words. Some of that comes by books and some by experience.

 

[ppp]

I believe science is the attempt to learn things by exploration and experiment as opposed to learning things by reading.

I believe religion is not about learning things. It is about knowing God through His words. Some of that comes by books and some by experience.

More pointedly, science is an attempt to learn about aspects of reality by engaging directly with reality in a manner that allows us to distinguish what we merely imagine to be true from what is true, or likely true.

Religion is about claiming a conclusion (God exists, God has words.) and then only interpret experience through that lens, irrespective of any discriminating grounding in reality..

 

[RestlessSoul]

More pointedly, science is an attempt to learn about aspects of reality by engaging directly with reality in a manner that allows us to distinguish what we merely imagine to be true from what is true, or likely true.

Religion is about claiming a conclusion (God exists, God has words.) and then only interpret experience through that lens, irrespective of any discriminating grounding in reality..

Or one might say that religion is an attempt to learn about man’s divine nature, by engaging directly with that divine power which some call God.