Why I Think That Science Kinda Sucks

[Orias]

Actually, in this case, it wasn't measured; it was defined. That is a metre is defined as the distance that light travels in 1/299,792,458 seconds.

However, the accompanying definition of the second came from science.

I think we can all agree, it all came from science

 

[gnomon]

Yes.

I kind of think of it like aiming a gun at someone.

That doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[Orias]

That doesn't make any sense at all.

Sure it does.

Its not like Call of Duty where you face endless waves of grunts and can spawn kill.

Here, you only get one shot.

 

[Looncall]

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.

i think Student is just using the conventional terms of insult one finds in the humanities: "reduction" and "scientism".

 

[Student of X]

No insult intended.

 

[Looncall]

No insult intended.

Thanks, that's appreciated. While I was an academic, those words were often used (by others) as put-downs.

What do you mean by reductionism when you use it, by the way?

 

[Student of X]

Are you a John Cleese fan?

[youtube]-M-vnmejwXo[/youtube]
John Cleese - The Scientists - 2008 - YouTube

 

[ScottySatan]

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.

Almost all of your complaint is against science journalism, not science.

 

[Student of X]

Almost all of your complaint is against science journalism, not science.

It's part of the whole science narrative.

“[...You] can’t think yourself out of the story you are caught in with the rules and elements of the very story in which you are caught. You can’t free yourself with the tools that the master provides you. You need a new story and new cognitive tools” -Jeffrey Kripal

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...igion-controlling-narratives.html#post2880876

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's part of the whole science narrative.

Baloney.

Many (most? All?) scientists have problems with the general quality of science journalism.

 

[Tristesse]

It's part of the whole science narrative.

“[...You] can’t think yourself out of the story you are caught in with the rules and elements of the very story in which you are caught. You can’t free yourself with the tools that the master provides you. You need a new story and new cognitive tools” -Jeffrey Kripal

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...igion-controlling-narratives.html#post2880876

It seems to me that you've been sucked in to a clap trap of non-sense. Science is the only proven method to be consistently reliable for defining reality. Can you think of a better method than science?

 

[Student of X]

It seems to me that you've been sucked in to a clap trap of non-sense. Science is the only proven method to be consistently reliable for defining reality. Can you think of a better method than science?

Defining reality? What exactly is the definition of reality, according to science? And how do you test that definition to see if it's reliable? With even more science?

 

[Tristesse]

Defining reality? What exactly is the definition of reality, according to science? And how do you test that definition to see if it's reliable? With even more science?

Reality comprises of things that are demonstrably real. Like my computer for example, I can touch the key pad, I can see the screen, I can hear my fingers typing on the pad, all of these things when put together allow me to conclude that my computer is most likely real. I can also have others come in and examine and confirm whether or not my computer is real. Considering that science is the best method we have for gaining knowledge, then I would say, yes, you use science to test explanations about the universe. Are you saying that we've learned nothing about the universe using the process of science?

 

[Student of X]

Reality comprises of things that are demonstrably real. Like my computer for example, I can touch the key pad, I can see the screen, I can hear my fingers typing on the pad, all of these things when put together allow me to conclude that my computer is most likely real. I can also have others come in and examine and confirm whether or not my computer is real. Considering that science is the best method we have for gaining knowledge, then I would say, yes, you use science to test explanations about the universe. Are you saying that we've learned nothing about the universe using the process of science?

This is all just so much rhetoric and naive realism. It means nothing to me. If science, then observe such-and-such. Observe such-and-such. Therefore, science. Affirming the consequent?

 

[Tristesse]

This is all just so much rhetoric and naive realism. It means nothing to me. If science, then observe such-and-such. Observe such-and-such. Therefore, science. Affirming the consequent anyone?

So, are you saying that you don't accept any findings of science? Like the theory of gravity, the germ theory, solar systems the fact that the earth orbits the sun etc...?

 

[Student of X]

So, are you saying that you don't accept any findings of science? Like the theory of gravity, the germ theory, solar systems the fact that the earth orbits the sun etc...?

I'm saying that science kinda sucks. That's all. It tricks you into thinking that it can tell you what the definition of "reality" is. That is to say, it smuggles philosophy into your head. The inability to detect it can cause scientism.

Science produces models which have some predictive value. The problem comes with thinking such models are "reality".

 

[Tristesse]

I'm saying that science kinda sucks. That's all. It tricks you into thinking that it can tell you what the definition of "reality" is. That is to say, it smuggles philosophy into your head. The inability to detect it leads to scientism.

Science produces models which have some predictive value. The problem comes with thinking such models are "reality".

Ok, lets make it simple. Do you think what you experience is reality?

 

[Student of X]

Ok, lets make it simple. Do you think what you experience is reality?

Of course not.

[youtube]wVC0FcSRxL8[/youtube]
Robert Anton Wilson On The Acceleration To 2012 - YouTube

 

[ArtieE]

Of course not.

I'm confused. Is it reality that you posted a link to a youtube video or is it the video that isn't real?

 

[Student of X]

I'm confused. Is it reality that you posted a link to a youtube video or is it the video that isn't real?

I can't believe that in this day and age people defend naive realism with science.

[youtube]XEZtw1yt8Kc[/youtube]
Robert Anton Wilson explains Quantum Physics - YouTube