• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Questioning Science

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
Is that Fe? I just want a warp drive dude. :D Life can be boring sometimes for the simple fact that I'm not a space pirate. That could be Se.

yea i think a demand for fairness in regards to giving without taking as in criticizing without returning something thats in the direction of Fe.

I dunno how often i have watched st:voyager now, maybe all seasons 10 times. its about time we get into space. think i'll get me an episode now and go to bed as well. cu in space :)
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
I think it's also important to be able to distinguish science proper from "scientism" or positivism. Too often we mistake the two as being the same.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Awakening

There's disbelief and the suspension of disbelief.

The suspension of disbelief has given us art, literature, music and religion, while disbelief has given us the scientific method.

The suspension of disbelief is achieved in a trance. And art, literature, music and religion are all based on trance. And religion in particular is based on group trance.

So while we are entranced by art, literature, music and religion, the scientific method has taken us from quarks at the deepest level of the atom to one hundred billion galaxies in an accelerationg universe.

We are consoled by trance but enlightened by the scientific method.

A trance is like being half asleep and half awake, while we wake up for the scientific method.

For all of our 200,000 year history we have been half awake and half asleep, but with the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries, we started to wake up.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Turning the Tables

Of course it is science that does the questioning.

For instance, the science of archeology has questioned the Old Testament, and Israeli archeologists have found the Exodus never occured. And if the Exodus, a foundation story of the Old Testament, never occured, then Moses never occured. And so most of the Old Testament never occured. And as Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, Jesus Christ never occured. And this is not only true for Christianity, it is true for the Book of Mormon and many other religions.

So no wonder the believers want to question science. Science has successfully questioned their beliefs and they want to turn the tables.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,195
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I think it's also important to be able to distinguish science proper from "scientism" or positivism. Too often we mistake the two as being the same.

Could you expound on this just a little more? I'm guessing you're referring to the sense that "science is making the world better and better" (AKA the ST:TNG mantra) and so all human ills will eventually be wiped away because of the body of knowledge and gizmos and processes we've accumulated in the last few hundred years... but I just want to make sure that's what you meant.

as a side note in response to other ideas in this thread, just because something can't be proven to be true doesn't mean some aspect of it didn't occur. That's binary thinking, to assume otherwise. The reality is that something might not have happened, but it doesn't mean that 100% of things attached to it didn't occur to some degree; we just don't know to what degree, if any, and have no real way to find out.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
Could you expound on this just a little more? I'm guessing you're referring to the sense that "science is making the world better and better" (AKA the ST:TNG mantra) and so all human ills will eventually be wiped away because of the body of knowledge and gizmos and processes we've accumulated in the last few hundred years... but I just want to make sure that's what you meant.
Well that's somewhat related to my overall point, but I was mainly referring to the concept that science is the only legitimate source of knowledge and truth over against other sources and faculties. This is often united with a messanic hope that science will somehow cure mankind of whatever ails it.
 

Beargryllz

New member
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Messages
2,719
MBTI Type
INTP
The thread title is Questioning Science

but,

Science is questioning

I do not understand this thread
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
The thread title is Questioning Science

but,

Science is questioning

I do not understand this thread

Well, they know science is threatening their beliefs, so they want to return the threat in kind and question science.

However we know this is misbegotten aim as it is science itself that constantly questions itself.
 

Beargryllz

New member
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Messages
2,719
MBTI Type
INTP
Well, they know science is threatening their beliefs, so they want to return the threat in kind and question science.

However we know this is misbegotten aim as it is science itself that constantly questions itself.

How does science threaten belief? A belief is a belief. A belief need not be true or false. Science will not make a belief wrong, but it could explain a belief that has been inadequately explained
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
As a professional scientist and volunteer science educator, I can attest to the validity of Kelric's concise, cogent remarks.

As others have already observed, science is fallible precisely because it is conducted by people, who are fallible and imperfect. When someone says he is being skeptical of science, though, what exactly is he skeptical of? Scientific conclusions? Collected data? The scientific method itself? The people who conduct it? Skepticism is inherent in the scientific method. Assertions must be supported by evidence, and the more outlandish the claim, the more evidence is usually required.

Peer review is generally conducted by people in the author's field but not in their institution. I have reviewed scientific papers for journals, and hold them to the same standards to which I hold my own work, and that of my students. When I submit papers for publication, I expect (and generally receive) the same in return. Occasionally I see a bit of "field bias", when my paper is reviewed by someone outside my field who misunderstands my methods or even goals, but this has been readily resolved by my supplying additional explanations.

Yeah, I meant to post here at some point today at least a comment of similar content: That while science might be falsifiable and contains within it a self-checking mechanism, the problem (to borrow a line from The Matrix) is people. We're the weakest link in the chain.

For an example, consider the whole concept of getting one's scientific discoveries out there. Typically you have to get published (and, before that, funding); and those gateways are controlled by people who might have a vested interest in the status quo, or who have strong opinions without wanting to entertain others, or do not have the knowledge/truth properly 'framed/contextualized", etc.
The problem here is that funding decisions are frequently made by people who are not scientists and have neither understanding of nor respect for scientific integrity and methodology. They fund what will get them reelected, or promoted; the politically correct approach, or what they think will make them money, or at least run the least risk of leaving them looking like an idiot should it fail (or perhaps succeed).

Inherent assumptions made:
1) There is an objective truth out there
2) "science" seeks and "finds" them

Are 5 apples and 5 apples irrefutably 10 apples? Doesn't the result inherently depend on the counting process? How does one separate the counting from the result? You have to have rules, like "the five apples in one set have to be different from the five apples on the other set" and so on.

I would say "the scientific process comes up with concepts and those concepts can be very reliable" rather than "science is infallible".
There are at least some objective truths out there, and discovering them is the goal of science. Subjective truths are left to other disciplines. As for measurement, like your counting example, there are rules for this. One is to control all variables other than that whose effect you are measuring. If unintentional double-counting is a possibility, the experiment must be (re)designed to exclude that, or the analysis must somehow account for it. This is a real issue in some experiments. Finally, the scientific process comes up with theories (concepts) that are very predictive of reality. When reality shows us something outside the prediction, or theory, it is time to expand or revise the theory. Often, the old theory still has much utility. Quantum mechanics built upon classical mechanics to provide a more complete description of the world, but classical mechanics is still all we need to send a spacecraft to Mars.

http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...eutrinos-traveling-faster-than-light-not.html
http://dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php

I think this sort of things happens with relatively somewhat often. I remember there was something a few years ago that was similar, but I don't remember the details.
The example described in these articles is a good illustration of what happens when results contradict an accepted theory. We check results, repeat the experiment, then reexamine the theory. In this case, this analysis revealed a flaw in the experiment. This doesn't prove the speed of light is an absolute limit, it just means the present experiment did not demonstrate otherwise.

Its my impression as an onlooker and I dont want to sound anti-american that religion and science and some sort of egoistical proft-oriented pragmatism are kinda mixed up here. I myself always had America as a sort of rolemodel for me, but when I heard that americans think nuclear power is the best energy source we have, that climate change has become a nagging feeling that one has to ignore so it doesnt bug, because it cant be proven and that creationism is an equally valid theory like darwinism, I dunno: my scientific respect began to stumble.

Then again maybe I am wrong and exactly the basic openess to even the most unrealistic theories is what the real scientific method is about.
You are, unfortunately, quite correct in your assessment. It is one thing to be open to even the most unrealistic theories, and quite another to fail to subject them to critical analysis. If Americans are good at the former, we are poor at the latter. I am not sure Americans overall think nuclear power is the best energy source we have. A more common attitude seems to be to cling to fossil fuels for as long as we can, because developing renewable resources will cost money, and no one wants higher energy prices or taxes. The oil companies, of course, encourage that thinking, since renewable energy would be a serious long-term competitor, never mind that their current business model is ultimately doomed by the finiteness of the global oil supply. As for the creationists, they still have surprising sway in the technology-ridden 21st century. I could carry on for paragraphs about this, that is almost another thread (think there may be one already).

As others have said, science is founded on the idea of falsifying. Not declaring any truth. It has no viewpoint to even question. One can only question it's findings.. and any scientist would tell you that's fair game. They even welcome it. It makes science, and the world even, better when you do. But if you don't, and simply criticize, then that's the only reason why you might make enemies in those communities. And it's not because of opposing ideology. It's because you're being stupid.
This is correct. We welcome questioning and even criticism, when it has some facts and logic behind it. But if all you say is "you're wrong", with no evidence or explanation of how and why, you look stupid and are not being constructive. If your reasoning is based on something like the Bible or a tarot reading, well -- you look willfully ignorant.

For instance, the science of archeology has questioned the Old Testament, and Israeli archeologists have found the Exodus never occured. And if the Exodus, a foundation story of the Old Testament, never occured, then Moses never occured. And so most of the Old Testament never occured. And as Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, Jesus Christ never occured. And this is not only true for Christianity, it is true for the Book of Mormon and many other religions.

So no wonder the believers want to question science. Science has successfully questioned their beliefs and they want to turn the tables.
There still might have been a historical Moses, and Jesus, and all the others, who perhaps didn't do all the great deeds described in the Bible. It doesn't matter, though. The truth in those stories lies not in their historical veracity, but in their lessons, much like Aesop's fables. Unfortunately this is not enough -- or perhaps too much -- for many believers to appreciate.
 

Little_Sticks

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
1,358
One other thing is that when people talk about bashing science, there is a big difference between searching for the structure of the universe that limits and structures our existence and talking about a social science.

A social science is philosophically sketchy by default; it can change as people will it too and thus for irrational reasons. You can never be sure you understand other people completely or that what you think you know will always be a factor in the future. We're all irrational in this regard. Politics, for example, is a social science (and perhaps all social sciences rolled into one broad term) and it includes our egos.

A science of physics looks at what laws govern or allow the existence of our free will. It knows there are structures to reality and seeks to find them. But to do so it has to be honest about how it goes about doing that and embrace skepticism of all its conclusions to do so. Its search is independent of our egos.

If science counts ten apples, it's counting those apples based on how they are part of a particular process; and that process is always assumed to be up for criticism for the sake of gaining a closer or better understanding.

But if a social science counts ten apples, now we're looking at how each apple impacts a person and how each person impacts each apple differently with their thoughts; and it will be different for each person and the results might even change if the same person repeats the counting. The results will even change if the apples are initially arranged differently, if the apples are different than before, or if some factor outside the experiment just happens to change the thought pattern of that person so that they see the apples now differently.

This is why using psychiatry to control moods is insane.

Does that make sense?
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
How does science threaten belief? A belief is a belief. A belief need not be true or false. Science will not make a belief wrong, but it could explain a belief that has been inadequately explained

Well, a belief that the Exodus occured is either true or false. And Israeli archeologists have shown that the belief that the Exodus occured is false.

And I hardly need to say that the Exodus is a prime justification for the State of Israel, so the findings of the Israeli archeologists threatens not only belief but the legitimacy of the State of Israel.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
There still might have been a historical Moses, and Jesus, and all the others, who perhaps didn't do all the great deeds described in the Bible. It doesn't matter, though. The truth in those stories lies not in their historical veracity, but in their lessons, much like Aesop's fables. Unfortunately this is not enough -- or perhaps too much -- for many believers to appreciate.

These founding stories do teach us a lesson. For instance, God ordered Abraham to torture and murder his son in order to teach us a lesson. And the lesson is that the followers of the Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, worship a God who has committed two criminal offences under Australian law.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I suppose if God incarnates in Australia, then, he will have trouble. provided the charges can be proven to the satisfaction of the courts. I don't know what kind of statute of limitations Australia has. The ten commandments, on the other hand, are a fairly reasonable guideline for peaceable living. In fact, I wonder to what extent they have influened Australian (and British, and U.S. and other) law.

The Bible shows us both what to do, and what not to do. Those who blindly obey it will not be able to distinguish between the two sorts of lessons.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Flouting the Ten Commandments

I suppose if God incarnates in Australia, then, he will have trouble. provided the charges can be proven to the satisfaction of the courts. I don't know what kind of statute of limitations Australia has. The ten commandments, on the other hand, are a fairly reasonable guideline for peaceable living. In fact, I wonder to what extent they have influened Australian (and British, and U.S. and other) law.

The Bible shows us both what to do, and what not to do. Those who blindly obey it will not be able to distinguish between the two sorts of lessons.

In Oz we are all equal before the law. It doesn't matter who you are, or what your station.

So naturally we would expect God to be equally subject to his own Ten Commandments.

But let's face reality. We have a double standard here. We are expected to be subject to the Ten Commandments but God flouts them at will.
 

Lateralus

New member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
6,262
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
3w4
I take this as a given. Our inability to determine it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

As for the rest, I don't think we disagree. Your post seems to argue that science as a process is not infallible, which is my point as well. I might not be making myself clear. My position is that the universe is governed by definite inarguable laws. The process of determining how these laws work ("science") is much more up for grabs, and too many people confuse the latter for the former.
It's not just people that are the problem. The process, itself, can lead to the "wrong" answer. As an example, I'll use a scenario brought up by Lawrence Krauss in his "A Universe from Nothing" talk.

In a hundred billion years (I might be off on that time period, but that's not really the point), the cosmic microwave background will be gone. Because of this, any civilization coming into existence at that time, trying to figure out the origin of the universe using the scientific method, will get the wrong answer even if they make no mistakes.

When I think about this, I wonder how many "wrong answers" we have discovered.

-----------------------------------------------

Regarding the main topic of this thread, questioning science is great...if you know enough about the subject to make a valid criticism. The problem I have with many critics of science is that generally the more vocal they are, the more ignorant they are. Criticizing from a position of ignorance is NEVER valid.
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
^^ ok but this philosophical, seemingly mystical attitude is not science.

I always hated it when I saw how much questions from real science were stolen into philosophy, like metaphysics. I dunno, I think something like philosophy is necessary, I still dont like it, cause they weave ideas out of nothing without attaching it to at least some sort of real reference frame :/. Kinda frustrating then to think about things if you have no basis for anything :/
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
How do we go about being skeptical of science?

What should we teach about it?

What keeps science honest?

Is there a "good old boys club" in the scientific establishment?

[MENTION=8413]Zarathustra[/MENTION] made the following points in another thread.



What are your thoughts about this?

Is there a 'complete dominance the scientific establishment possesses when it comes to the "truth"' as Zarathustra says?

It has always been the case that in order for science to make real progress the "old guard" of scientists must first die out.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
^^ ok but this philosophical, seemingly mystical attitude is not science.

I always hated it when I saw how much questions from real science were stolen into philosophy, like metaphysics.

No, science "stole" the philosophical questions. The first scientific questions originated with Ancient Greece. There was no distinguishing philosophy from science until the modern era. The scientific method is a modern notion which finally makes the distinction overt. If you actually read Newton's works you will find many religious notions. Science applies the scientific method to philosophical questions.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
^^ ok but this philosophical, seemingly mystical attitude is not science.

I always hated it when I saw how much questions from real science were stolen into philosophy, like metaphysics.

No, science "stole" the philosophical questions. The first scientific questions originated with Ancient Greek philosophy. There was no distinguishing philosophy from science until the modern era. The scientific method is a modern notion which finally makes the distinction overt. If you actually read Newton's works you will find many religious notions. Science applies the scientific method to philosophical questions.
 
Top