Why I Think That Science Kinda Sucks

[Student of X]

I think that scientists are letting us all down, and I'll tell you why. I think science is clumsy and limited and overrated, yet there is a perception that science is unlimited in scope and potential, and science has a sort of prestige that I think is counterproductive. I don't like it when a scientist is given undue credibility for statements outside his or her area of expertise.

Science is based on flawed philosophical premises, and these premises are sort of smuggled in and forgotten about. As a result many people have a totally skewed sense of reality because of science, and scientism is practically a religion.

Anyway, sorry for the rant.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Take that, science.

-Nato

 

[Erebus]

I don't like it when a scientist is given credibility for statements outside his area of expertise.
.

This I agree with.

scientism is practically a religion.

This I agree with in regards to some people.

The rest I've got to disagree on. Science is a tool and it's proven itself highly effective for improving our understanding of the material world and providing the technology and knowledge to better enjoy life. Frankly, I'm happy to live in a world where people consider me a little loopy for practicing magic considering I'm also able to discuss this fact with people around the globe while sat listening to heavy metal. Not being burned at stake is also a plus.

 

[Student of X]

Exactly! Have at thee, science!

 

[lunamoth]

I love science and think it is awesome. I love medicine and technology and improved food production and the shear delight of exploration, new knowledge and pioneering in space and in the deep sea.

It is people's own problem if they ascribe overdue importance or misplaced trust in what scientists say about things outside their expertise. It is not the fault of science or scientists if people adopt a worldview of scientism.

 

[HerDotness]

I'm grateful for scientific advances because I need some daily medications that were developed because of our knowledge of DNA and evolution.

I sometimes wonder if those who oppose evolution realize how many modern medicines, some of which they may rely upon themselves, resulted from "evil scientific research."

 

[Student of X]

I love science and think it is awesome. I love medicine and technology and improved food production and the shear delight of exploration, new knowledge and pioneering in space and in the deep sea.

Science kinda sucks but I'm amused by it sometimes. It's an age of novelty that's for sure.

But we don't need science in order to explore the cosmos or the deep sea or to be healthy.

It is people's own problem if they ascribe overdue importance or misplaced trust in what scientists say about things outside their expertise. It is not the fault of science or scientists if people adopt a worldview of scientism.

The fault can't be reduced to an individual, just to a sleepy sort of herd-mentality groupthink.

 

[Skwim]

Science is based on flawed philosophical premises, and these premises are sort of smuggled in and forgotten about.

What are these "flawed philosophical premises"?

As a result many people have a totally skewed sense of reality because of science,

Got any examples, so we know what you're referring to?

and scientism is practically a religion.

Really, what characteristics do you see as bringing it close to being a religion?

 

[Student of X]

What are these "flawed philosophical premises"?

You know. Material monism, reductionism, physicalism, etc.

Got any examples, so we know what you're referring to?

'Collecting and Classifying the Data of the Damned'.

Really, what characteristics do you see as bringing it close to being a religion?

They seem to display fundamentalist personality traits wrt science.

 

[Reptillian]

I think that scientists are letting us all down, and I'll tell you why. I think science is clumsy and limited and overrated, yet there is a perception that science is unlimited in scope and potential, and science has a sort of prestige that I think is counterproductive. I don't like it when a scientist is given undue credibility for statements outside his or her area of expertise.

Science is based on flawed philosophical premises, and these premises are sort of smuggled in and forgotten about. As a result many people have a totally skewed sense of reality because of science, and scientism is practically a religion.

Anyway, sorry for the rant.

Science is clumsy, limited, and overrated? Science has done things that religion can only dream about. Did thousands of years of prayer eliminate small pox? Did gnomes create your computer with magic spells and incantations? Scoff if you will at the scientific method and philosophical outlook, but it produces results. If science is so flawed, how is it able to do all these things? The proof is in the pudding. The good book says, "By their fruit you shall know them." The fruits of science are evident, the fruits of religion don't seem quite as edible to me.

 

[Student of X]

Science is clumsy, limited, and overrated? Science has done things that religion can only dream about. Did thousands of years of prayer eliminate small pox? Did gnomes create your computer with magic spells and incantations? Scoff if you will at the scientific method and philosophical outlook, but it produces results. If science is so flawed, how is it able to do all these things? The proof is in the pudding. The good book says, "By their fruit you shall know them." The fruits of science are evident, the fruits of religion don't seem quite as edible to me.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Anyway, sorry for the rant.

Anytime you wish to rant about science using your high-speed computer and the facilities of the internet please feel free to do so. But try not to dwell on it. It will simple make your extended lifespan that much more miserable. :kissbette

 

[Sunstone]

There seems to be a growing anti-science movement in America these days. I think many of the people who subscribe to the movement dislike science because it contradicts what they would like to believe is true about themselves and the world. It wounds their egos to be told they don't have a secure foundation for their beliefs. But I don't have any hard science on that, so I'm just speculating.

 

[Student of X]

Anytime you wish to rant about science using your high-speed computer and the facilities of the internet please feel free to do so. But try not to dwell on it. It will simple make your extended lifespan that much more miserable. :kissbette

Contrary to popular perception, technological advancements do not verify any particular philosophy, since mental monism allows for everything that material monism does. And then some.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Contrary to popular perception, technological advancements do not verify any particular philosophy, since mental monism allows for everything that material monism does. And then some.

Science doesn't base itself in material monism. It's the result of scientific process.

If you have issues with this, simply present evidence which survives testing that proves dualism, supernaturalism, or whatever it is you take issue with.

 

[Student of X]

Science doesn't base itself in material monism. It's the result of scientific process.

Material monism is the table that scientists are building their house-of-cards on. In order to do that, they had to reject the other table. The other table meaning mental monism.

As long as everyone plays along with material monism and doesn't bump the table, science runs as smoothly as can be expected. But as soon as you try to use science to investigate things that point to mental or neutral monism, you run into problems. Things like consciousness.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Material monism is the table that scientists are building their house-of-cards on. In order to do that, they had to reject the other table. The other table meaning mental monism.

As long as everyone plays along with material monism, science runs smoothly. But as soon as you try to use science to investigate things that point to mental monism, you run into problems. Things like consciousness.

Can you support your claims of mental monism?

 

[Student of X]

Can you support your claims of mental monism?

I believe I could gradually build a case that would persuade a neutral observer.

 

[Reptillian]

Material monism is the table that scientists are building their house-of-cards on. In order to do that, they had to reject the other table. The other table meaning mental monism.

As long as everyone plays along with material monism and doesn't bump the table, science runs as smoothly as can be expected. But as soon as you try to use science to investigate things that point to mental or neutral monism, you run into problems. Things like consciousness.

Well if you can use mental or neutral monism to make testable predictions that can be repeated by others, then science has no problem with that philosophical outlook.

 

[Student of X]

Well if you can use mental or neutral monism to make testable predictions that can be repeated by others, then science has no problem with that philosophical outlook.

You can't because mental and neutral monism predict that consciousness has much or some to do with the most fundamental nature of reality. Including the consciousness of others trying to repeat a prediction. How are you going to shield a prediction from reality itself? There is no Archimedean point outside of consciousness.