Why I like science

[Revoltingest]

Engineering is applied science.

You're very generous.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The world is full of simpletons who can't tell the difference between artifice and reality. Are you trying to claim that justifies you and I joining them?

Hardly answered the point. Many of the religious do take that espoused by their religion as being fact rather than myth.

Why you think this is somehow significant is a mystery to me. Because it's not a significant point, and it may or may not even be true. Science is just another myth generator, like religion, and philosophy, and art. Only we don't call them myths or propositions in science, we call them theories. But they are all imaginatively generated, and they are all intent on sharing presumed knowledge our experience of existence. The worship of science as a pathway to truth is no different than the worship of religion as a pathway to truth, or of philosophy, or even of art. They are all (myths, propositions, theories, created images) generated by our imagination, and by our desire to presume unto ourselves knowledge and wisdom that we don't actually possess. And they all use our experience of being as their justification and validation.

It's what we humans do. It's what we humans have always done. And the increase in physical functionality that science gives us may well destroy us in the end. Especially if we continue to abandon the pursuit of wisdom through philosophy, art, and religion, in favor of physical functionality, as we are currently doing.

Science as a myth generator? Well it has outshone all of the religions, always will, and few of us worship it even if you must insist so to satisfy your particular skewed view of reality. And currently, we seem more likely to be destroying ourselves due to religious conflict (or dogmatic religious beliefs to be precise) than anything else. Not notice events?

 

[Wandering Monk]

You're very generous.

My job was all about applying science to produce useful things. I was an electronic and mechanical technician for 37 years and worked very closely with engineers for that entire period. I have seen first hand the application of new physics and chemistry to the real world.

 

[PureX]

Hardly answered the point. Many of the religious do take that espoused by their religion as being fact rather than myth.

And many do not.

Most children believe that Santa Claus is 'historical' fact, too, until they grow up and learn to be more sophisticated about these ideological and cultural myths. So where are you in all this? Are you going to grow up and join the more sophisticated discussion? Or are you going to remain in the children's debate so you feel so much smarter than them?

 

[Mock Turtle]

And many do not.

Most children believe that Santa Claus is 'historical' fact, too, until they grow up and learn to be more sophisticated about these ideological and cultural myths. So where are you in all this? Are you going to grow up and join the more sophisticated discussion? Or are you going to remain in the children's debate so you feel so much smarter than them?

Oh, I know I am much smarter than most. You seem to think words will get you everywhere when we know that a sizeable proportion of the religious do apparently believe what they are told by the leaders of their religion - especially in some countries, the USA included.

 

[PureX]

Oh, I know I am much smarter than most. You seem to think words will get you everywhere when we know that a sizeable proportion of the religious do apparently believe what they are told by the leaders of their religion - especially in some countries, the USA included.

I still don't see why you think this is relevant.

There are facts, and there are opinions, and there are beliefs; based on all sorts of sophisticated combinations of logic and reason and experiences. Science does not change this. Science is not truth. It's just another collection of facts and opinions for we humans to ponder, debate, and "believe in" (or not) as we see fit. Religion, philosophy, the arts, science; these are neither our enemy, nor our pathway to truth. They are just different methodologies we humans use to explore our experience of existence, for it's meaning, function, purpose, and value.

 

[Thief]

Not sure if this belongs in a debate forum, but felt moved to mention.

I like science because in a world with competing mythology science gives us an independent measuring rod to determine which mythologies (if any) are in accordance with reality.

In short, I prefer to follow deductive processes of modern educated humans to the uninformed guesses and assertions of primitive religious people.

This has potential to give me nothing to discuss with those who reject science as a means to determining truth of a matter, as we would not be having common ground to move a discussion forward.

So how about you, love science, hate it or indifferent?

I believe in God
BECAUSE of science

 

[Mock Turtle]

I still don't see why you think this is relevant.

There are facts, and there are opinions, and there are beliefs; based on all sorts of sophisticated combinations of logic and reason and experiences. Science does not change this. Science is not truth. It's just another collection of facts and opinions for we humans to ponder, debate, and "believe in" (or not) as we see fit. Religion, philosophy, art, science, these are neither our enemy, nor our pathway to truth. They are just different methodologies we humans use to explore our experience of existence, for meaning, function, purpose, and value.

We know science isn't some perfect system. Whatever science is, and we know it mainly is about getting close to the truth rather than exactly portraying the truth, it is the only thing we have that even comes close to describing reality in any meaningful manner. We (speaking I think for all sensible persons) don't worship science, but do know that much of it is the best explanation we have, at the moment, for various phenomena. It hardly amounts to myth, and differs from religious beliefs because all too often the myths of such religions are taken as being factual. And which often causes the problems we have and all the conflicts. Science doesn't tend to do this since we do know that our theories are usually just tools - good tools if they enable us to describe phenomena or develop technology based on such.

 

[exchemist]

Interesting point, but how did you decide mythology was not historical truth without applying science to it?

The same way people like Origen realised the Genesis story was an allegory. No science was needed to realise it could not be literally true. Conflicts within the text alone would rule that out, even without taking into account the tradition of regarding other ancient myths as allegorical.

 

[PureX]

We know science isn't some perfect system. Whatever science is, and we know it mainly is about getting close to the truth rather than exactly portraying the truth, it is the only thing we have that even comes close to describing reality in any meaningful manner.

That's just plain not true. It is not the only thing we have that describes reality in any meaningful manner. In fact, science has nothing to do with establishing or describing meaning. Nor does it establish or describe reality in any way apart from physical inter-action. You are elevating science to "scientism", which is just as dangerous and dishonest as any other form of ideological fundamentalism-turned-idolatrous. Science does not address existential value. Science does not address existential meaning. Science does not address existential purpose. Science is NOT the holy grail of wisdom and truth, nor even a pathway to these. Science is all and only about physical functionality. That's it. Nothing more. And this completely ignores the more important questions and issue currently facing humanity.

We (speaking I think for all sensible persons) don't worship science, but do know that much of it is the best explanation we have, at the moment, for various phenomena.

How a phenomenon inter-relates with other phenomena does not explain anything more than how it inter-relates with other phenomena. This is not an 'answer'. This is not an existential resolution. Knowing this does not generate wisdom, or value, or purpose, or truth, for the knower. You say you don't worship science and yet you keep insisting that it has some magical existential power that it clearly does not have. And that it's the only and best means we have of obtaining anything regarding existential value and purpose.

It's NOT!

We have other means. And we have had them for many centuries. And we do use them. And they do work. We do become wiser through the use of these other methods of existential inquiry (very slowly, I'll grant, but that may just be humanity's lot). This is not deniable. This is a fact.

 

[Vee]

So how about you, love science, hate it or indifferent?

I love science, but there are many types of science and I must say they don't all hold the same value to me. I'm not saying they aren't all important, but for example, for me medical science has a lot more value than some others since it has a greater immediate impact in our lives.
Spacial science for example, can teach us a lot about the universe, but it's application is not as practical and the fact that we can send a spaceship to another planet might be awesome but it's not going to do anything for us humans in the immediate future, while finding a treatment for a disease will.

 

[ChristineM]

Not sure if this belongs in a debate forum, but felt moved to mention.

I like science because in a world with competing mythology science gives us an independent measuring rod to determine which mythologies (if any) are in accordance with reality.

In short, I prefer to follow deductive processes of modern educated humans to the uninformed guesses and assertions of primitive religious people.

This has potential to give me nothing to discuss with those who reject science as a means to determining truth of a matter, as we would not be having common ground to move a discussion forward.

So how about you, love science, hate it or indifferent?

Science, marvelous tool for discovering how the world works and, where possible, making use of those discoveries. For example, without several aspects of science there would be no RF.

 

[Shad]

So how about you, love science, hate it or indifferent?

It varies depending on my interests and circumstance. For example my interest in science-fiction at a young age has a created an interest in astrophysics, astronomy, etc later in life. Medicine was an interest during my fight with cancer. Otherwise I am indifferent.

 

[3rdAngel]

Not sure if this belongs in a debate forum, but felt moved to mention.

I like science because in a world with competing mythology science gives us an independent measuring rod to determine which mythologies (if any) are in accordance with reality.

In short, I prefer to follow deductive processes of modern educated humans to the uninformed guesses and assertions of primitive religious people.

This has potential to give me nothing to discuss with those who reject science as a means to determining truth of a matter, as we would not be having common ground to move a discussion forward.

So how about you, love science, hate it or indifferent?

For me I also like science as long as you correctly understand it's limitations and that it does not have or does it claim to have all the answers to life. It has been my career and is my occupation as a Government scientist (biologist) specializing in entomology. That being said one must consider science does not know all the answers to the origin of life or there would simply be no more science on that subject. Science is only as good as the next experiement and sometimes the next experiment can completely change our thinking on something we once believed to be true only to find out what we once believed was never true to begin with.

All the best.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Not sure if this belongs in a debate forum, but felt moved to mention.

I like science because in a world with competing mythology science gives us an independent measuring rod to determine which mythologies (if any) are in accordance with reality.

Not entirely sure how this is the case or could be. People in recent centuries have perhaps given greater wait to what we might call mythologies than did those who are commonly identified with various mythologies (esp. e.g., the Greeks and Romans and other "pagans" from antiquity whose "mythologies" were largely, albeit accidentally, constructed by early and late modern Western scholars), and yes there are a good many practitioners of what might be called neopaganism or something similar who actually use the term mythology for their own belief systems, but in the main acknowledging something as a mythology tends to indicate that one at the very least doesn't consider it to be true. Some practicing Christians, for example, might call the accounts in genesis and elsewhere myth or as part of a Judaeo-Christian mythology (as did early Christians), and one finds something similar in Hinduism and elsewhere. But in the main one who calls religious narrative or set of narratives a "mythology" is dismissing it rather than saying that it is not perhaps literally true but is still valuable.
Nor can we call the work in any scientific field somehow an independent measuring rod of reality or of something else in accordance of reality. We aim at understanding and usefully describing reality. But as in general we believe reality to be one thing within which research is conducted (and often about which it concerns), I'm not sure how this is supposed to provide something independent.

In short, I prefer to follow deductive processes of modern educated humans to the uninformed guesses and assertions of primitive religious people.

Empirical science is not deductive, or to the extent it is deductive this is as an aside in establishing the formal validity of some mathematical apparatus or tool. A good example of why is found in the fact that Bell's theorem has been proved over and over again since the first proof given in 1964. Despite this, there is considerable controversy over what these deductively constructed proofs are supposed to say about reality. Deduction is the process of going from axioms or premises or other assumptions to some conclusion in a logical manner. We don't have that luxury in empirical inquiry, because we are trying to discover things about reality, not assume them. I don't like calling it induction, because it really isn't this either, but induction is at least generally closer to what scientists actually due than deduction (which, ironically, theologians did happily enough and still do).

So how about you, love science, hate it or indifferent?

It's what I do for a living (and for fun too, for that matter).

 

[Mock Turtle]

That's just plain not true. It is not the only thing we have that describes reality in any meaningful manner. In fact, science has nothing to do with establishing or describing meaning. Nor does it establish or describe reality in any way apart from physical inter-action. You are elevating science to "scientism", which is just as dangerous and dishonest as any other form of ideological fundamentalism-turned-idolatrous. Science does not address existential value. Science does not address existential meaning. Science does not address existential purpose. Science is NOT the holy grail of wisdom and truth, nor even a pathway to these. Science is all and only about physical functionality. That's it. Nothing more. And this completely ignores the more important questions and issue currently facing humanity.

You are describing what philosophy does - or religions for the many who can't get further. Neither deal with how we interact daily with our surroundings and how we progress. No one can live with just these two, but we can live by having science - which has produced much of what we see emanating from the human mind, and intelligence. Many or even most people don't even consider the bigger questions that you seem to imply rules their lives - they often go for the simpler explanations coming from the religion of their parents, culture, etc. Science is not there to answer questions about our future but it will help in telling us what might happen if we choose certain options. What exactly does religion do here, especially when we have so many conflicting beliefs? Are we supposed to let them fight it out?

You say you don't worship science and yet you keep insisting that it has some magical existential power that it clearly does not have. And that it's the only and best means we have of obtaining anything regarding existential value and purpose.

Hardly - it does what it does - what else is there? Religions don't provide maths, or chemistry, or all of the rest that science has provided to understand our reality. You seem to believe that people are constantly thinking about and asking questions about their existence when the evidence seems to show this is not so. They are more interested in living a decent life.

We have other means. And we have had them for many centuries. And we do use them. And they do work. We do become wiser through the use of these other methods of existential inquiry (very slowly, I'll grant, but that may just be humanity's lot). This is not deniable. This is a fact.

Whatever you think we have as an alternative I'd like to see it.

 

[LWakefield]

I love science. Definitely. I'd much rather see the actual truth of things as it really is rather than live in a rose colored world constructed of imagination and fantasy.

Although I will admit the latter is more fun and comfortable.

The breath is a circle;

and from Black Elk Speaks:

Everything the Power of the World does
is done in a circle.
The sky is round,
and I have heard that the earth is round like a ball,
and so are all the stars.
The wind, in its greatest power,
whirls.
Birds
make their nests in circles,
for theirs is the same religion as ours.
The sun
comes forth
and goes down again in a circle.
The moon does the same,
and both are round.
Even the seasons
form a great circle in their changing,
and always come back again
to where they were.
The life of a man
is a circle
from childhood to childhood,
and so it is
in everything where power moves.

https://www.amazon.com/Dream-Child-Hypothesis-Story-Self-ebook/dp/B07YMPWVK4/ref=sr_1_1? crid=1TOIFWAJRL8GD&keywords=the+dream+child+hypothesis&qid=1578282356&s=books&sprefi x=the+dream+child%2Caps%2C168&sr=1-1

 

[Twilight Hue]

I love the mystery science discovers too

The thrill of discovery. To me, it's a wonderful porpoise that we discover for so many reasons.

 

[Straw Dog]

Not sure if this belongs in a debate forum, but felt moved to mention.

I like science because in a world with competing mythology science gives us an independent measuring rod to determine which mythologies (if any) are in accordance with reality.

In short, I prefer to follow deductive processes of modern educated humans to the uninformed guesses and assertions of primitive religious people.

This has potential to give me nothing to discuss with those who reject science as a means to determining truth of a matter, as we would not be having common ground to move a discussion forward.

So how about you, love science, hate it or indifferent?

Science is not a homogenous dogmatic enterprise, like religion. That’s what make it organic and flexible. It’s about discovery rather than dogma.

So I’m more or less indifferent about science because it’s not a centralized authority. It’s a set of methods that demonstrate their effectiveness through successful applications. We’re all scientists in so far as we apply empirical and rational methods.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I love both, but mostly religion, specifically faith.

Why, what's so great about faith?