What do You Think Science is...

[firedragon]

Honestly, to fit it into the Religious Debate section.
I thought it'd get more attention here.

Well. I must say I respect it. Good discussion as always Nakosis.

Cheers.

 

[rational experiences]

If everyone said I'm just an equal human first and stop talking you would be correct.

But you don't stop.

So then you argue because you don't stop.

Science the chosen human choice behaviours. Beliefs. Wants. Choices. Doing. Speaking describing teaching all humans just humans choosing objects to talk about. Subjects

Is just for your ego advice egotists....human behaviour.

Who form groups to persuade you are a special human..a leader by thoughts stories for egotism. Believe in my speaking. What I say isn't it interesting about all other things.

I can naturally look at anything and marvel at its presence without following you or agreeing with you.

If a single human said I could care less it is because you bullied them. Forced them to agree because your status the group said so.

Is wrong. Human egotists today.

I learnt what I learnt by trying not to be an egotist. And be a single minded realist.

 

[MJ Bailey]

In response to the OP: An exploitation to everything existing after said exitances (theories) are tested with constant variables making the theory (existence) a tangible fact. It is my belief that Humanity is in its infancy. of Science due to not accepting all of the Sciences caused by lack of understanding.

 

[sayak83]

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

This is exactly what I hear from most scientists. Doesn't seem perjorative to me. Seems accurate, no?

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

No. Very few scientist will claim any such thing.
You have read too much Dawkins.

 

[sayak83]

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.

No. Scientists accept that their methodology is not suitable for exploring the realm of subjective experiences. So they do not use it to explore them.

 

[The Hammer]

No. Very few scientist will claim any such thing.
You have read too much Dawkins.

Not even once

 

[RestlessSoul]

If an accurate description reads like contempt,
what does that tell you? : D

It tells me that much prejudice exists in the human heart, not least among those who consider themselves intellectually superior to their fellows.

 

[RestlessSoul]

That is an interesting claim. Do you have any evidence, intellectual or empirical, that methodology of science is to put the conclusion first and work to coerce the data fit that conclusion?

No, that would be the complete opposite of the principle of open minded, honest inquiry. Yet it appears to characterise your approach to spiritual matters, which was of course my point.

Though I see from some of your other posts, that you may have had a religious upbringing. Perhaps this explains your hostility to all spiritual concepts; which is a shame for you.

 

[firedragon]

No. Very few scientist will claim any such thing.
You have read too much Dawkins.

I think he said "scientism", not scientists.

 

[firedragon]

No. Scientists accept that their methodology is not suitable for exploring the realm of subjective experiences. So they do not use it to explore them.

What do you mean by this? Sorry I dont think I fully understand what you are saying. If you have some time please do explain or elaborate. Thanks.

 

[HonestJoe]

No. Scientists accept that their methodology is not suitable for exploring the realm of subjective experiences. So they do not use it to explore them.

That isn't at all true. While science can't be used to directly assess subjective experiences, it can (and routinely do) study them indirectly through the causes and effects of them.

For example, imagine two people eating something, one saying is tastes great and the other saying it tastes horrible. We can't directly determine if the food actually tastes good or bad, but we can seek to understand the elements of the food that reach with our bodies and how our brains interpret those interactions. We can seek to understand why different people have different reactions to the same food.

That can also include identifying ways in which our senses and mind specifically misrepresent or misunderstand reality, giving us an objectively incorrect perception of the world, by studying the world in varying direct ways and again, by understanding how the body and brain actually gathers and interprets data. For example, consider those optical illusions which can use false perspective to make equally-size images appear different or make static images appear to be moving. Even if you're consciously aware that it is a trick, your subjective experience can still be of the false image but scientific method has allowed us to understand the mechanics behind the phenomena, to the point that we can consistently recreate them.

One of the fundamental reasons for scientific method is that we can't observe or detect everything and we can't rely on our individual perception of things alone. It is about using multiple different sources of information, assessed in a consistent manner by multiple people, to reduce the impact of our human imperfections and reach more reliable (though not necessarily perfect) conclusions.

 

[Audie]

It tells me that much prejudice exists in the human heart, not least among those who consider themselves intellectually superior to their fellows.

If its accurate, that means prejudice to say it?

The truth bites and stings sometimes.

 

[Audie]

Not even once

I heard so much about " Dawkins" from our theos, i picked up a copy. Read a few pages.
Boring.

 

[ppp]

No, that would be the complete opposite of the principle of open minded, honest inquiry. Yet it appears to characterise your approach to spiritual matters, which was of course my point.

You realize that you are telling me that my approach to spiritual matters is one of honest open-minded inquiry? I agree.

Though I see from some of your other posts, that you may have had a religious upbringing. Perhaps this explains your hostility to all spiritual concepts; which is a shame for you.

Ah. That old slur.

 

[PureX]

That isn't at all true. While science can't be used to directly assess subjective experiences, it can (and routinely do) study them indirectly through the causes and effects of them.

For example, imagine two people eating something, one saying is tastes great and the other saying it tastes horrible. We can't directly determine if the food actually tastes good or bad, but we can seek to understand the elements of the food that reach with our bodies and how our brains interpret those interactions. We can seek to understand why different people have different reactions to the same food.

Correction: via science, we can seek to understand HOW different people have different reactions to food in terms of a 'taste experience'. But not WHY. One of the reasons that 'scientism' so often occurs is that people confuse and conflate these two very different paths of inquiry.

That can also include identifying ways in which our senses and mind specifically misrepresent or misunderstand reality, giving us an objectively incorrect perception of the world, by studying the world in varying direct ways and again, by understanding how the body and brain actually gathers and interprets data. For example, consider those optical illusions which can use false perspective to make equally-size images appear different or make static images appear to be moving. Even if you're consciously aware that it is a trick, your subjective experience can still be of the false image but scientific method has allowed us to understand the mechanics behind the phenomena, to the point that we can consistently recreate them.

One of the fundamental reasons for scientific method is that we can't observe or detect everything and we can't rely on our individual perception of things alone. It is about using multiple different sources of information, assessed in a consistent manner by multiple people, to reduce the impact of our human imperfections and reach more reliable (though not necessarily perfect) conclusions.

But by "more reliable" all we really get is more predictably functional. NOT necessarily more knowledgeably accurate. A LOT of people do not understand this, and don't want to understand it. More fuel for the 'scientism' cult.

 

[Sheldon]

Audie determines that other people's evidence isn't evidence, so they don't have any. It's a built-in bias that is blind to itself (as most bias is). And it's maintained by ignoring the difference between, and the subjective nature of evidence and proof.

Like someone telling all atheists, that they must hold a belief that no deity exists, even after they specifically explained they do not.

 

[Sheldon]

When you claim someone "has no evidence", what you mean is that you don't accept whatever evidence they offer as being evidence.

Well of course, if someone claims they can fly unaided to the moon, but only when no one can see or detect them, am I supposed to imagine that this "testimony" is evidence for the experience they claim to have had?

You often do this, and you're not alone, in assuming that people who don't see religious claims as evidence, must therefore be biased against them, even though they apply that standard universally to all claims.

I don't disbelieve claims that are unsupported by sufficient objective evidence, just because I'm biased against them, but precisely because I would have to accept conflicting claims that used the same standard of subjective anecdotal experience, or use subjective bias to arbitrarily select some or one to believe or disbelieve. Bias is what I am keen to avoid, when I subject all claims to the same standard.

 

[lukethethird]

Correction: via science, we can seek to understand HOW different people have different reactions to food in terms of a 'taste experience'. But not WHY. One of the reasons that 'scientism' so often occurs is that people confuse and conflate these two very different paths of inquiry.

So using why in a sentence amounts to scientism.
Holy **** Sherlock, aren't you the genius.

 

[Etritonakin]

As opposed to religion?

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

If you wanted to contrast the two,

Science is discovering facts about the environment -and so how to interact with it -beginning at the perspective of the ones experiencing the environment.

Religion is -ideally -access to the recorded and active source of knowledge -and so how to interact with the environment -which could essentially negate the need for reverse-engineering (but aid greatly in creation).

"The tree of life" includes all that science does not yet know (except perhaps things yet to be created).

The existence of God would mean one would be in the position to offer life after death, etc., for all -whereas science might figure out immortality, but it would not do any good for those who existed before.

 

[ppp]

Religion is -ideally -access to the recorded and active source of knowledge -and so how to interact with the environment -which could essentially negate the need for reverse-engineering (but aid greatly in creation).

Ideally, perhaps. But not practically.