Why I Think That Science Kinda Sucks

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let me ask you something. Do you think one can follow the scientific method to disprove something doesn't exist? Do you believe God's existance to be a legitimate scientific issue?

Those questions should make it radiantly obvious. If you don't see it, I don't know what else to tell you.

Isn't it the scientific method that told us that smallpox was eradicated (i.e. became absent) in the late 1970s?

 

[Quiddity]

Isn't it the scientific method that told us that smallpox was eradicated (i.e. became absent) in the late 1970s?

Yes, why do you ask?

 

[Tristesse]

Not at all. But, who's to say we have the same pass?

Humanity has the same pass. Are you human?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, why do you ask?

Because you asked whether the scientific method could prove an absence.

Quibbles about the term "prove" aside, if the right set of evidence was able to let us say that there is no smallpox any more, then hypothetically, given the right set of evidence, why mightn't we be able to say that there are no gods?

 

[Quiddity]

Because you asked whether the scientific method could prove an absence.

If you read my posts, you can see I was speaking of God's existance.

Quibbles about the term "prove" aside, if the right set of evidence was able to let us say that there is no smallpox any more, then hypothetically, given the right set of evidence, why mightn't we be able to say that there are no gods?

That is a giant hypothetical. On par to my faith.

I honestly don't know what this evidence would possibly be?

I just don't think science would be what would do it. It would have to happen metaphysically and no where else.

 

[Orias]

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.

I wonder what these flawed philosophical premises are.

It would be my guess that the ancients had nothing better to do

 

[Student of X]

The God hypothesis is a scientific question, one that can, in principle at least, be answered empirically with a yes or no result.

If you are stacking the deck for or against a particular notion of God, then perhaps you're right. The only God hypothesis you can try to test is the one you bring with you to the lab. Where are you going to get it? From your personal history? From your neighborhood Church? From your dominant cultural religion? How very panoramic of you.

I would like to see science try to test a trickster god hypothesis. opcorn:

The Trickster and the Paranormal

 

[Shermana]

Because you asked whether the scientific method could prove an absence.

Quibbles about the term "prove" aside, if the right set of evidence was able to let us say that there is no smallpox any more, then hypothetically, given the right set of evidence, why mightn't we be able to say that there are no gods?

Yeah, what would be the "right set" of evidence to prove there are no "gods"? It's hard enough getting Atheists to answer what they'd consider solid evidence for a god to begin with, what kind of criteria would they use to say there's no gods?

 

[blackout]

Scientists must recognize physical things and attatch labels to them.

If no one can agree on what 'Oxygen' 'looks like' or even 'is',
then the label will be of no use to a scientist.
'Words'.. 'letters'.... without physical, or measurable 'thingyness' attatched
are of no observational use to scientists.
(unless they are studying the ink they are printed with)

In science, the 'thing' is observed first, then named later.

In the mind/imagination, the Word can come first, then later the 'thing' it represents.
(even if that 'thing' is still just an idea).

Outwardly unobservable and immesurable ideas cannot be observed
beyond the lab of the mind of the individual.

I personally don't see why any of this should be a problem to anyone though.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

It's hard enough getting Atheists to answer what they'd consider solid evidence for a god to begin with

In science, the 'thing' is observed first, then named later.

That's true. In empirical evidential inquiry, there's a phenomenon that needs explaining.

It's not usually the case that work has to be done to establish that there's a phenomenon in the first place.

-Nato

 

[jarofthoughts]

I personally don't see why any of this should be a problem to anyone though.

It only becomes a problem when people present their 'mind-lab' results as if they were objective truths.

 

[Student of X]

I disagree.

What is science? Science is everything that you used to make this thread, everything we use to make computers, write books, create films, iPods, music, cars, stereos, radios, printers, television....

Science is life.

If you think science sucks, you think life sucks.

Science is nothing more AND nothing less than life.

Based on this, it looks to me like your belief-system might just be scientism.

[youtube]wmFWLCub0sA[/youtube]
Charley Tart - YouTube

 

[tumbleweed41]

I think someone is confusing the reality of relying on naturalistic science to learn more about the natural workings of our universe with with some sort of unreasonable dogma.

If, as Micheal Shermer put it, scientism is "a worldview that encompasses natural explanations, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason.", then yes, I accept "scientism" as a valid and reasonable philosophy.

However, I think Student prefers the more critical definition of scientism as science having no boundaries at all, and that science alone will solve ALL human problems and that all aspects of human endeavors in time will be dealt with and solved by science. This is a more dogmatic philosophy rarely held by reasonable people, but often used as a pejorative by critics of science to describe skeptics of the paranormal and supernatural.

 

[gnomon]

So let's tie this thread up.

So far we have a few people essentially saying that science sucks because the conclusions reached through empirical methodologies do not currently support the make believe of these individuals. Therefore, in order to express their displeasure they have built a strawman and called it Scientism in order to tear down the methodologies of science without even defining an alternative methodology of their own.

How educational.

 

[Willamena]

If, as Micheal Shermer put it, scientism is "a worldview that encompasses natural explanations, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason.", then yes, I accept "scientism" as a valid and reasonable philosophy.

It's already got a name: naturalism. Scientism is just an unreasonable bias, like when someone says, "Everything is science!" Well, no... math isn't science. Literature isn't science. Poetry and art isn't science.

However, I think Student prefers the more critical definition of scientism as science having no boundaries at all, and that science alone will solve ALL human problems and that all aspects of human endeavors in time will be dealt with and solved by science. This is a more dogmatic philosophy rarely held by reasonable people, but often used as a pejorative by critics of science to describe skeptics of the paranormal and supernatural.

Yup.

 

[Willamena]

So let's tie this thread up.

So far we have a few people essentially saying that science sucks because the conclusions reached through empirical methodologies do not currently support the make believe of these individuals. Therefore, in order to express their displeasure they have built a strawman and called it Scientism in order to tear down the methodologies of science without even defining an alternative methodology of their own.

How educational.

So... you're not wrapping the thread, but re-opening it under this new topic?

 

[no-body]

Science is awesome and humble it allows for changes as new discoveries are made. Theistic thinking is arrogant and stale, it leads nowhere because you already have the answers you want from the start.

You have the right to believe whatever you want but please don't inject your nonsense into science.

Pretty funny seeing the mental gymnastics involved in using sciences fruits but trying to claim that it isn't because of science "technology and science are two separate things!" hilarious.

 

[Student of X]

Science is awesome and humble it allows for changes as new discoveries are made. Theistic thinking is arrogant and stale, it leads nowhere because you already have the answers you want from the start.

You have the right to believe whatever you want but please don't inject your nonsense into science.

Pretty funny seeing the mental gymnastics involved in using sciences fruits but trying to claim that it isn't because of science "technology and science are two separate things!" hilarious.

I'm having a hard time reconciling this post with what you said the other day.

"You have to understand everything is mystical. Everything. Everyone is having mystical experiences every second of everyday they just don't realize it." -no-body

But it probably just boils down the the inherent weaknesses in language. I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt, even though you don't seem to want to extend the same courtesy to me, after all the words we use don't always mean exactly the same things to everyone.

 

[no-body]

I'm having a hard time reconciling this post with what you said the other day.

"You have to understand everything is mystical. Everything. Everyone is having mystical experiences every second of everyday they just don't realize it." -no-body

But it probably just boils down the the inherent weaknesses in language. I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt, even though you don't seem to want to extend the same courtesy to me, after all the words we use don't always mean exactly the same things to everyone.

You really are hung up on semantics.

I don't see any inconsistency there. You don't have to force mysticism into science, it already is mystical.

 

[Iti oj]

Adam dream a world and he dreamed rules for this world we are craetions of his dream and dream to but our dreams never violate his dreams...for we are of his dream...emperical reality that science studies is adams dream