Why are the Sciences Empirical?

[Shia Islam]

Recently, I heard someone allege that the sciences are empirically oriented because they are dominated by atheists who wish to deny the existence of God. Going beyond the obvious truth of that, what other reasons might there be for why the sciences are empirically oriented?

The scientific community is biased.
Scientists are under pressure and knows that the are assumed not to defy many norms..

 

[blü 2]

Recently, I heard someone allege that the sciences are empirically oriented because they are dominated by atheists who wish to deny the existence of God. Going beyond the obvious truth of that, what other reasons might there be for why the sciences are empirically oriented?

Well, I could rattle on about the virtues of maximizing objectivity, arguing honestly and transparently from examinable evidence, an objective standard of demonstration blah blah blah ─ but why do we need another reason at all?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Recently, I heard someone allege that the sciences are empirically oriented because they are dominated by atheists who wish to deny the existence of God. Going beyond the obvious truth of that, what other reasons might there be for why the sciences are empirically oriented?

1. Look up the word "Empirical".
2. Research "Scientific Method".

This should take you no more than about 15 minutes to an hour (max) and the answer to your question will become self-evident.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

The scientific community is biased.
Scientists are under pressure and knows that the are assumed not to defy many norms..

Like Einstein, who refined Newton?
Like Darwin, who opposed the norm?
Like Georges Lemaître, who opposed the Static Universe model?
Like Galileo who opposed the Heliocentric model?
Like Alfred Wegener who proposed Continental Drift?

Scientists want to be on this list.

 

[PureX]

Who or what conceptual endeavor is not empirical? Empiricism refers to the idea that knowledge is gain through sensual experience. In what field of endeavor is knowledge NOT being gained through sensual experience? What access do we have to existential reality that is not gained through our senses?

 

[exchemist]

Recently, I heard someone allege that the sciences are empirically oriented because they are dominated by atheists who wish to deny the existence of God. Going beyond the obvious truth of that, what other reasons might there be for why the sciences are empirically oriented?

What an idiotic assertion. Until the c.20th most scientists were religious believers and in fact even today you may find that over half of them are.

Science developed, after the Renaissance, due to the growing realisation of the explanatory and predictive power of models of nature tested against observation of nature. Atheism had precisely zero to do with it. You will find the early scientists continually making remarks about the wonders of God's creation uncovered by their research.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The scientific community is biased.
Scientists are under pressure and knows that the are assumed not to defy many norms..

That doesn't really work, because at the crux of scientific progress is learning old ideas are wrong. There may always be a better way, but what doesn't work doesn't work, and we don't waste time trying it again. Being able to adequately falsify an established theory would be considered groundbreaking.

 

[HonestJoe]

Recently, I heard someone allege that the sciences are empirically oriented because they are dominated by atheists who wish to deny the existence of God. Going beyond the obvious truth of that, what other reasons might there be for why the sciences are empirically oriented?

What would be the alternative? Human beings are implicitly empirical. We instinctively observe things, interpret them and reach conclusions based upon them. Even if we wanted to establish a formal scientific process that used something other than empiricism, I don’t see how we could avoid having it influence the conclusions. All of the people who propose alternatives to “mainstream science” to understand the universe around us make use of empiricism even if they don’t realise it.

 

[Shia Islam]

Like Einstein, who refined Newton?
Like Darwin, who opposed the norm?
Like Georges Lemaître, who opposed the Static Universe model?
Like Galileo who opposed the Heliocentric model?
Like Alfred Wegener who proposed Continental Drift?

Scientists want to be on this list.

You have just listed names of scientists who share almost the same ontological stance.

 

[Shia Islam]

That doesn't really work, because at the crux of scientific progress is learning old ideas are wrong. There may always be a better way, but what doesn't work doesn't work, and we don't waste time trying it again. Being able to adequately falsify an established theory would be considered groundbreaking.

Again. I was talking in another level.
Why are the Sciences Empirical?

 

[wellwisher]

Empirical science bases itself on what the fives senses can observe. The irony is, things like intuition are a natural extrapolation of the five senses. The analogy would be like observing the night sky with your eyes; empirical, versus using a telescope; intuition, with the telescope being taboo to the sensory purists.

The unconscious brain is capable of absorbing more data than the conscious mind is aware; subliminal data. It is also capable of processing higher data density. The bottleneck is the translation link between the unconscious and conscious processes. This link is not as reliable, in all people, compared to the sensory systems. The universal use of the sensory system data makes it more universally applicable.

When we read a final science paper or article, this is the result of a lot of work which includes following hunches and intuitions. However, before it can be published, it has to be compiled and presented in a way where you do not appear to use the telescope, even if this was part of the investigation. The exception is the statistical oracles, where you summon the gods of dice to act in the role of intuition. This happens outside you, making it more socially acceptable.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, someone had to invent science. That invention was based on imagination and not empirical evidence.

Not exactly. The use of empirical evidence existed prior to the development of science. It was just not seen as useful in determining truth since the senses were regarded as unreliable.

 

[Native]

Empiricism is the philosophical theory that the world open to and describable by our interpretation of sensory data is adequately represented.

The philosophical approach is simply based on factual observations of "things in nature" and investigating natural cycles of creation.

The Modern Definition of Empiricism
"the theory that all knowledge is based on experience derived from the senses. Stimulated by the rise of experimental science, it developed in the 17th and 18th centuries, expounded in particular by John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume".

This exclusive method rules out/diminish the human skills of observation and intuitiv understanding of cosmos everywhere. This is why many modern scientist cannot grasp what they are investigating, especially on the cosmological scales.

 

[Cooky]

Nonsense. There is nothing we can speak of that isn't an idea.

Exactly... Since there is no *other* kind of idea...

You just proved my point for me. Thanks.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Recently, I heard someone allege that the sciences are empirically oriented because they are dominated by atheists who wish to deny the existence of God.

That would be patently false, off course.
In fact, back when this method was established / standardized, it was done by people who more then likely where actually theists.

Going beyond the obvious truth of that

You mean, the obvious falsehood of that....

, what other reasons might there be for why the sciences are empirically oriented?

Because empirical inquiry leads to accurate answers as it provides for testability and verifiability.
Because the alternative is to "just believe" people.

Empirical work can be independently verified.

 

[Cooky]

Who or what conceptual endeavor is not empirical? Empiricism refers to the idea that knowledge is gain through sensual experience. In what field of endeavor is knowledge NOT being gained through sensual experience? What access do we have to existential reality that is not gained through our senses?

I was making the same case. Maybe the answer to that would be to understand the mind frame of those who coined the term "empiricism", and what they were talking about, I guess. I have no idea what the alternative would have been.

 

[Cooky]

The philosophical approach is simply based on factual observations of "things in nature" and investigating natural cycles of creation.

The Modern Definition of Empiricism
"the theory that all knowledge is based on experience derived from the senses. Stimulated by the rise of experimental science, it developed in the 17th and 18th centuries, expounded in particular by John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume".

This exclusive method rules out/diminish the human skills of observation and intuitiv understanding of cosmos everywhere. This is why many modern scientist cannot grasp what they are investigating, especially on the cosmological scales.

Intuitive.... like making stuff up, and calling it undeniable fact? Was that common once?

 

[Polymath257]

I was making the same case. Maybe the answer to that would be to understand the mind frame of those who coined the term "empiricism", and what they were talking about, I guess. I have no idea what the alternative would have been.

Well, an alternative is to be found in Plato. He thought that the senses are so unreliable that they cannot be used as a guide for truth. Instead, he suggested that 'sitting and thinking' was a much better approach since it would at least lead to consistency.

This is actually a position taken by many in history and even some today.

The problem, as i see it, is that mere consistency is only a minimal standard. There are many internally consistent viewpoints that are not true. How do we distinguish between them? And the answer, ultimately, is empiricism.

 

[Polymath257]

Intuitive.... like making stuff up, and calling it undeniable fact? Was that common once?

Um. Look around you. It is still pretty common.

Many would argue that this is all that religion consists of.

 

[Cooky]

Um. Look around you. It is still pretty common.

Many would argue that this is all that religion consists of.

So empiricism would have began as a case against religious fundamentalism? But that couldn't be stated as such maybe, because it would have been too direct, and politically incorrect perhaps?