I'm surprised, and kinda amused tbh, you think this is dangerous thinking.
People tend to take "incomplete" sciences and assume that, since it's based on the scientific process and all that, it must be correct.
....
And I see the belief that we conclusively understand something a very nice way to become close-minded in that particular something and cause troubles.
....
Like I said, it's the mentality I have an issue with. It seems innocuous with things like wind, but then you get people getting idiotically hard-headed over even the soft sciences like anthropology, or when people take incomplete sciences and attempt to create policy/take it as if it's complete, then I see issues.
Let me know if I'm wrong in thinking that "just because we have a million pieces of evidence to suggest that something is right, doesn't mean that it IS right". This is what my whole thought is rooted in anyhow.
In this context, I agree with your point > Incomplete scientific data or theories are a shaky argument, that shouldn't be relied on.
Science can be used to support differing opinion in some cases, no different to the ways religion or statistics can be bent to support someones' argument or their will, for good, bad or otherwise.
RE: "just because we have a million pieces of evidence to suggest that something is right, doesn't mean that it IS right".
Context is important, as there are definitely some things science could be said to have proven as fact, beyond any doubt.
You must not know many philosophers. We can doubt anything. If science cannot definitively prove that the world we perceive is not merely an illusion created by the Matrix or a trickster demon or our own overactive subconscious mind or whatever, then a fortiori it cannot prove anything about that world is fact.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
RE: "just because we have a million pieces of evidence to suggest that something is right, doesn't mean that it IS right".
Context is important, as there are definitely some things science could be said to have proven as fact, beyond any doubt.
Right, like how the ancient Greeks proved beyond any reasonable doubt that we lived in an geocentric world.
You must not know many philosophers. We can doubt anything. If science cannot definitively prove that the world we perceive is not merely an illusion created by the Matrix or a trickster demon or our own overactive subconscious mind or whatever, then a fortiori it cannot prove anything about that world is fact.
The ancient Greeks and their geocentric belief is my go-to to show how fallible the concept of "all evidence suggests X, therefore X is almost undoubtedly true" is, and why I continually stress the importance of saying "to the best of our knowledge, X is this/works like this".
If you have an actual counter to it then I'm open to hearing it.
And, honestly, given how you've started your post in this thread by mocking me, I'd wager the one who attempted to bait is you.
I'm not saying the Cartesian problem is anything new, or even anything really interesting. It's tired, and old, and cheap, and stupid. But until you solve it, you don't get to say that science proves things "beyond any doubt".
And even once you've gotten past Descartes, you still have to deal with Hume...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Man, it'd have been so much more badass if you'd said "And even once you've gotten past Descartes, you still have to deal with me..."
Which is what I read that as at first glance.
I dunno if this is all that an important conversation though, in terms of the discussion. A lot of the time people aren't necessarily well versed in specific way of phrasing things or why we use phrases like "beyond a reasonable doubt" or the difference between what proof means colloquially verses scientifically, but we can kind of get at what they mean even if they don't say it with rigor. Especially when people are coming into this with ESL or some other thing in the way. Or, perhaps, in the engineer vs the philosopher mindsets. The myriad of data sure doesn't prove, beyond a doubt, that a certain proposition is true, but they are certainly useful.
I'm not saying the Cartesian problem is anything new, or even anything really interesting. It's tired, and old, and cheap, and stupid. But until you solve it, you don't get to say that science proves things "beyond any doubt".
And even once you've gotten past Descartes, you still have to deal with Hume...
I don't think there's anything I can add that will satisfy your thoughts here. I don't believe we're in the Matrix...
In the context of this thread, relative to this philosophy bent;
How can we be sure religion isn't a form of control?
How can we be sure religion isn't a big lie and Jesus was simply dreamed up by the romans (or someone else) years after the supposed fact?
Pretty hard to prove either, one way or another, I would think.
The ancient Greeks and their geocentric belief is my go-to to show how fallible the concept of "all evidence suggests X, therefore X is almost undoubtedly true" is, and why I continually stress the importance of saying "to the best of our knowledge, X is this/works like this".
If you have an actual counter to it then I'm open to hearing it.
And, honestly, given how you've started your post in this thread by mocking me, I'd wager the one who attempted to bait is you.
The ancient greeks? What about the Spanish who believed the world was flat?
Basing an argument on ancient beliefs to point to why science is bogus is a flawed argument, no different to me saying I don't believe in medicine because they used to burn people to get the demons out.
Try harder > base your argument on something we all accept as truth, that science can prove with little doubt, and then maybe I'll respect where you're coming from.
The ancient greeks? What about the Spanish who believed the world was flat?
Basing an argument on ancient beliefs to point to why science is bogus is a flawed argument, no different to me saying I don't believe in medicine because they used to burn people to get the demons out.
Try harder > base your argument on something we all accept as truth, that science can prove with little doubt, and then maybe I'll respect where you're coming from.
You are missing the point of his argument. He isn't arguing that the ancient Greeks were correct. He's arguing (probably correctly) that the ancient Greeks determination of geocentricity was based on the evidence that they had at the time. He's further arguing that 1) they had a lot of evidence in support of it and 2) they had almost no evidence against it.
The point of this argument, however, is not that they were correct. It is, in fact, the opposite. Despite all the evidence they had being in support of their theory, their theory was wrong. The lesson learned is -- even if the vast majority of the evidence supports your theory, you should not regard it as indisputable fact.
That doesn't mean you have to accept nonsensical counters as possibilities, but it does mean that you shouldn't dismiss everything that disagrees with your soundly supported theory out of hand without giving the counter-argument its due weight.
Basing an argument on ancient beliefs to point to why science is bogus is a flawed argument, no different to me saying I don't believe in medicine because they used to burn people to get the demons out.
Try harder > base your argument on something we all accept as truth, that science can prove with little doubt, and then maybe I'll respect where you're coming from.
No one is saying science is "bogus." You need to reread the thread if that's what you're taking away from it.
People are saying that science does not provide "indisputable" truths. There's a gigantic distance between that and "bogus." All scientific truths are, by definition, disputable. That's the point of science, to look for better evidence that allows us to dispute prevailing theories.
No one has denied that science can provide highly reliable information. For example, we have a very useful and reliable understanding of gravitational mechanics that allows us to send rockets on highly precise trajectories through space. That doesn't mean our gravitational theories are "indisputable." Not long ago, cosmologists were questioning whether the gravitational r squared law needed to be revised in light of our observations of dark matter. And we still don't really know how gravity works at a quantum level, or why it's so much weaker than the other fundamental forces.
In the context of this thread, relative to this philosophy bent;
How can we be sure religion isn't a form of control?
How can we be sure religion isn't a big lie and Jesus was simply dreamed up by the romans (or someone else) years after the supposed fact?
Pretty hard to prove either, one way or another, I would think.
As a matter of logically rigorous proof, of course we can't be certain of any historical fact. Any historian who would tell you otherwise is a hack. But as in the sciences, we can raise or lower our confidence in certain historical propositions by examining the available evidence. And the available evidence all says Joseph Atwill is full of ****. And that's not at all difficult to establish.
The ancient greeks? What about the Spanish who believed the world was flat?
The Spanish didn't believe the world was flat. By the time of Colombus, and for a very long time before then really, people knew we lived in a round Earth.
Basing an argument on ancient beliefs to point to why science is bogus is a flawed argument,
I NEVER SAID SCIENCE IS BOGUS. And if that is what you picked up from that "go-to" of mine, then once again you completely missed the point.
Perhaps it would behoove you to actually take time to understand what others are writing and trying to convey, instead of reading what you want to read.
P.S.- bLatch hits what I typically want to convey with that "go-to" perfectly.
You are missing the point of his argument.
The point of this argument, however, is not that they were correct. It is, in fact, the opposite. Despite all the evidence they had being in support of their theory, their theory was wrong. The lesson learned is -- even if the vast majority of the evidence supports your theory, you should not regard it as indisputable fact.
I know.
For the most part, I've already agreed with magickware99's point that science will effectively be an evolution of data to form what we believe to be the truth, a fact, or a working model that explains the data in a way that makes sense.
If any of you know advanced physics relative to MRI, you'd know that the theory we have for explaining how an MRI machine works is flawed. (one of the 3 most complex machines man has ever made behind the nuclear submarine and space shuttle) The model we have works in practice, but we know the math to explain it has a few aspects that still has a few kinks...
So yes, I understand magickware99's point. I stated as much in an earlier post.
MY point, is relatively simple > there are things we can prove, too. (I really didn't think this was that big a deal)
Basing an argument on ancient beliefs to point to why science is bogus is a flawed argument,
I NEVER SAID SCIENCE IS BOGUS.
Whoa, inside voice, dude.
Science evolves. I get that. You get that. Pretty sure we're ALL on the same page there > can we move on?
I know I use colourful language on occasion, (maybe it's an aussie thing?), didn't mean to strike a nerve.
We are not certain about anything in science. We are only always as knowledgeable as our current ability to gain and interpret information allows us.
There are lots of aspects to science that will always be in a state of flux, no matter how widely accepted some of them become, but then at the same time there will many things you could consider to be constant. It's these constants I'm pointing to, these rocks or fundamentals that we base everything else on. For example;
When you want "X" litres of a fluid, you weigh it rather than measure it's volume, as you can be sure you're getting the exact volume of liquid no matter what the liquid or room temperature might be.
So moving from there, I would argue it is impossible to actually achieve anything of complexity without considering these fundamentals as a "facts".
Indisputable is a word you would relate to a fact > in science I believe there's things that could be considered this way.
We all understand where I'm coming from now?
Feel free to talk about greeks again, but I feel we're both right > so any argument here at length, will continue appearing like a dog chasing it's own tail.
There are lots of aspects to science that will always be in a state of flux, no matter how widely accepted some of them become, but then at the same time there will many things you could consider to be constant. It's these constants I'm pointing to, these rocks or fundamentals that we base everything else on. For example;
When you want "X" litres of a fluid, you weigh it rather than measure it's volume, as you can be sure you're getting the exact volume of liquid no matter what the liquid or room temperature might be.
So moving from there, I would argue it is impossible to actually achieve anything of complexity without considering these fundamentals as a "facts".
Indisputable is a word you would relate to a fact > in science I believe there's things that could be considered this way.
We all understand where I'm coming from now?
I don't understand at all how the italicized sentence could be considered indisputable, and frankly I'm pretty sure it's just straight-up wrong as stated. If you measure the weight of water and you're sure it's pure water and you know the precise room temperature and you know the precise pressure and you assume we're on earth and we're not accelerating so we know the gravitational acceleration constant then we can convert the weight measurement to an estimate of volume. But if the temperature or pressure or any of these other things changes, the volume of the liquid will change; also if we use a liquid other than water (mercury for example) the volume will be way different. It's definitely not "the exact volume of liquid no matter what the liquid or room temperature might be." (Working in a hospital, maybe this is a useful rule of thumb since room temperature is usually closely controlled and since almost all liquids you deal with will be 90%+ water. But definitely not "indisputable truth.")
But yes, we all understand where you're coming from, and we have from the beginning. No one disagrees that many scientific facts are widely accepted and well-established. That's not what this thread is about.
Paraphrasing, the topic of the thread was: Why don't people worship science rather than religion, since science deals in absolutes? And the point is that science doesn't deal in religious-like absolutes. There are no dogmas in science, and science doesn't even attempt to answer questions about "ultimate truths" like why we're here, or the meaning of life. That's what this debate is about; whether science can ever be a substitute for religion. And the bottom line is that even if all world religions were definitively proven false, science could never "step in" and become the new religion. Science serves a completely different purpose.
I don't understand at all how the italicized sentence could be considered indisputable, and frankly I'm pretty sure it's just straight-up wrong as stated.
Okay, I got one word wrong cos I rushed it > but weighing a liquid will give you the exact measurement of a litre no matter the temperature, pressure (etc.) is something that is very true.
Paraphrasing, the topic of the thread was: Why don't people worship science rather than religion, since science deals in absolutes? And the point is that science doesn't deal in religious-like absolutes. There are no dogmas in science, and science doesn't even attempt to answer questions about "ultimate truths" like why we're here, or the meaning of life. That's what this debate is about; whether science can ever be a substitute for religion. And the bottom line is that even if all world religions were definitively proven false, science could never "step in" and become the new religion. Science serves a completely different purpose.
Worshipping science may be where the thread is heading I guess, but that not a very romantic thought is it?
Okay, I got one word wrong cos I rushed it > but weighing a liquid will give you the exact measurement of a litre no matter the temperature, pressure (etc.) is something that is very true.
Um... no, it's not. Volume changes based on temperature and pressure. It's how a thermometer works, it's how a hot-air balloon works, it's why ice floats. You can't get around this physical fact by putting the liquid in question on a scale. Let's look at water. Wikipedia has a handy table giving the density of liquid water at various temperatures. What this means is that at, say, 10°C, one kilogram of water has a volume of 1.0003 liters, but at 80°C, the same kilogram has a volume of 1.029 liters.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Okay, I got one word wrong cos I rushed it > but weighing a liquid will give you the exact measurement of a litre no matter the temperature, pressure (etc.) is something that is very true.
Seriously?
You talk about your degree in "science", and yet you think "liquid will give you the exact measure of a litre no matter the temperature, pressure (etc.)"?
Oh man.
I guess you'll go and say that when water boils and vaporizes, it won't count cause it's no longer liquid?
Quote from slave » »
I know I use colourful language on occasion, (maybe it's an aussie thing?), didn't mean to strike a nerve.
So...
Quote from slave » »
Wow.... seems the same-same passive aggressive attitudes prevail. Wave your flags boys and girls!
Not saying I'm any different than the rest of you, but this did induce a WTF?
Quote from slave » »
I call bull*****.
I come from a medical background, work in an ED dept. and have a degree in science.
magickware99, it seems to me you're of the attitude that science doesn't explain death > so how about you explain why you've come to this conclusion with a reason yourself?
(above is not a reason)
The above wasn't meant to strike a nerve?
Funny.
Quote from slave » »
There are lots of aspects to science that will always be in a state of flux, no matter how widely accepted some of them become, but then at the same time there will many things you could consider to be constant. It's these constants I'm pointing to, these rocks or fundamentals that we base everything else on.
Any other "fundamentals" you want to point at in an attempt to make a grossly generalized point, the kind of point that I am continually trying to say is not a very good thing to do?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In this context, I agree with your point > Incomplete scientific data or theories are a shaky argument, that shouldn't be relied on.
Science can be used to support differing opinion in some cases, no different to the ways religion or statistics can be bent to support someones' argument or their will, for good, bad or otherwise.
RE: "just because we have a million pieces of evidence to suggest that something is right, doesn't mean that it IS right".
Context is important, as there are definitely some things science could be said to have proven as fact, beyond any doubt.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Right, like how the ancient Greeks proved beyond any reasonable doubt that we lived in an geocentric world.
...here's Tom with the weather.
Not at all.
The ancient Greeks and their geocentric belief is my go-to to show how fallible the concept of "all evidence suggests X, therefore X is almost undoubtedly true" is, and why I continually stress the importance of saying "to the best of our knowledge, X is this/works like this".
If you have an actual counter to it then I'm open to hearing it.
And, honestly, given how you've started your post in this thread by mocking me, I'd wager the one who attempted to bait is you.
And even once you've gotten past Descartes, you still have to deal with Hume...
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Which is what I read that as at first glance.
I dunno if this is all that an important conversation though, in terms of the discussion. A lot of the time people aren't necessarily well versed in specific way of phrasing things or why we use phrases like "beyond a reasonable doubt" or the difference between what proof means colloquially verses scientifically, but we can kind of get at what they mean even if they don't say it with rigor. Especially when people are coming into this with ESL or some other thing in the way. Or, perhaps, in the engineer vs the philosopher mindsets. The myriad of data sure doesn't prove, beyond a doubt, that a certain proposition is true, but they are certainly useful.
I don't think there's anything I can add that will satisfy your thoughts here.
I don't believe we're in the Matrix...
In the context of this thread, relative to this philosophy bent;
How can we be sure religion isn't a form of control?
How can we be sure religion isn't a big lie and Jesus was simply dreamed up by the romans (or someone else) years after the supposed fact?
Pretty hard to prove either, one way or another, I would think.
The ancient greeks? What about the Spanish who believed the world was flat?
Basing an argument on ancient beliefs to point to why science is bogus is a flawed argument, no different to me saying I don't believe in medicine because they used to burn people to get the demons out.
Try harder > base your argument on something we all accept as truth, that science can prove with little doubt, and then maybe I'll respect where you're coming from.
You are missing the point of his argument. He isn't arguing that the ancient Greeks were correct. He's arguing (probably correctly) that the ancient Greeks determination of geocentricity was based on the evidence that they had at the time. He's further arguing that 1) they had a lot of evidence in support of it and 2) they had almost no evidence against it.
The point of this argument, however, is not that they were correct. It is, in fact, the opposite. Despite all the evidence they had being in support of their theory, their theory was wrong. The lesson learned is -- even if the vast majority of the evidence supports your theory, you should not regard it as indisputable fact.
That doesn't mean you have to accept nonsensical counters as possibilities, but it does mean that you shouldn't dismiss everything that disagrees with your soundly supported theory out of hand without giving the counter-argument its due weight.
No one is saying science is "bogus." You need to reread the thread if that's what you're taking away from it.
People are saying that science does not provide "indisputable" truths. There's a gigantic distance between that and "bogus." All scientific truths are, by definition, disputable. That's the point of science, to look for better evidence that allows us to dispute prevailing theories.
No one has denied that science can provide highly reliable information. For example, we have a very useful and reliable understanding of gravitational mechanics that allows us to send rockets on highly precise trajectories through space. That doesn't mean our gravitational theories are "indisputable." Not long ago, cosmologists were questioning whether the gravitational r squared law needed to be revised in light of our observations of dark matter. And we still don't really know how gravity works at a quantum level, or why it's so much weaker than the other fundamental forces.
As a matter of logically rigorous proof, of course we can't be certain of any historical fact. Any historian who would tell you otherwise is a hack. But as in the sciences, we can raise or lower our confidence in certain historical propositions by examining the available evidence. And the available evidence all says Joseph Atwill is full of ****. And that's not at all difficult to establish.
The Spanish didn't believe the world was flat.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The Spanish didn't believe the world was flat. By the time of Colombus, and for a very long time before then really, people knew we lived in a round Earth.
I NEVER SAID SCIENCE IS BOGUS. And if that is what you picked up from that "go-to" of mine, then once again you completely missed the point.
Perhaps it would behoove you to actually take time to understand what others are writing and trying to convey, instead of reading what you want to read.
P.S.- bLatch hits what I typically want to convey with that "go-to" perfectly.
I know.
For the most part, I've already agreed with magickware99's point that science will effectively be an evolution of data to form what we believe to be the truth, a fact, or a working model that explains the data in a way that makes sense.
If any of you know advanced physics relative to MRI, you'd know that the theory we have for explaining how an MRI machine works is flawed. (one of the 3 most complex machines man has ever made behind the nuclear submarine and space shuttle) The model we have works in practice, but we know the math to explain it has a few aspects that still has a few kinks...
So yes, I understand magickware99's point. I stated as much in an earlier post.
MY point, is relatively simple > there are things we can prove, too. (I really didn't think this was that big a deal)
LOL.
Just me man, just me.
Whoa, inside voice, dude.
Science evolves. I get that. You get that. Pretty sure we're ALL on the same page there > can we move on?
I know I use colourful language on occasion, (maybe it's an aussie thing?), didn't mean to strike a nerve.
There are lots of aspects to science that will always be in a state of flux, no matter how widely accepted some of them become, but then at the same time there will many things you could consider to be constant. It's these constants I'm pointing to, these rocks or fundamentals that we base everything else on.
For example;
When you want "X" litres of a fluid, you weigh it rather than measure it's volume, as you can be sure you're getting the exact volume of liquid no matter what the liquid or room temperature might be.
So moving from there, I would argue it is impossible to actually achieve anything of complexity without considering these fundamentals as a "facts".
Indisputable is a word you would relate to a fact > in science I believe there's things that could be considered this way.
We all understand where I'm coming from now?
Feel free to talk about greeks again, but I feel we're both right > so any argument here at length, will continue appearing like a dog chasing it's own tail.
I don't understand at all how the italicized sentence could be considered indisputable, and frankly I'm pretty sure it's just straight-up wrong as stated. If you measure the weight of water and you're sure it's pure water and you know the precise room temperature and you know the precise pressure and you assume we're on earth and we're not accelerating so we know the gravitational acceleration constant then we can convert the weight measurement to an estimate of volume. But if the temperature or pressure or any of these other things changes, the volume of the liquid will change; also if we use a liquid other than water (mercury for example) the volume will be way different. It's definitely not "the exact volume of liquid no matter what the liquid or room temperature might be." (Working in a hospital, maybe this is a useful rule of thumb since room temperature is usually closely controlled and since almost all liquids you deal with will be 90%+ water. But definitely not "indisputable truth.")
But yes, we all understand where you're coming from, and we have from the beginning. No one disagrees that many scientific facts are widely accepted and well-established. That's not what this thread is about.
Paraphrasing, the topic of the thread was: Why don't people worship science rather than religion, since science deals in absolutes? And the point is that science doesn't deal in religious-like absolutes. There are no dogmas in science, and science doesn't even attempt to answer questions about "ultimate truths" like why we're here, or the meaning of life. That's what this debate is about; whether science can ever be a substitute for religion. And the bottom line is that even if all world religions were definitively proven false, science could never "step in" and become the new religion. Science serves a completely different purpose.
Okay, I got one word wrong cos I rushed it > but weighing a liquid will give you the exact measurement of a litre no matter the temperature, pressure (etc.) is something that is very true.
Worshipping science may be where the thread is heading I guess, but that not a very romantic thought is it?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Seriously?
You talk about your degree in "science", and yet you think "liquid will give you the exact measure of a litre no matter the temperature, pressure (etc.)"?
Oh man.
I guess you'll go and say that when water boils and vaporizes, it won't count cause it's no longer liquid?
So...
The above wasn't meant to strike a nerve?
Funny.
Any other "fundamentals" you want to point at in an attempt to make a grossly generalized point, the kind of point that I am continually trying to say is not a very good thing to do?