Science the end all and be all

CM · Post by CM » Sun Apr 17, 2005 9:17 am

Science is based on human knowledge.
Human knowledge is not absolute.
Human knowledge can very easily be flawed.
Science this can never be absolute and can be flawed.
Following from that Science would never be able to explain everything concerning life or humanity as it is limited by human knowledge.
Thus there may be things out of the knowledge of science.

Logical? Any flaws? Comments?

giles337 · Post by **giles337** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 9:25 am

Apart from the obvious problem of it being impossible to prove that human knowledge is absolute, it seems pretty sound... Why?

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 9:33 am

Sure, I wouldn't formulate myself exactly the way you did, but basically I agree with your conclusion and I also see no special flaws in your reasoning. I would like to add though that even if human knowledge was absolute, science is a discipline that is dealing with certain types of questions, which means that even if science was based on absolute knowledge, it would still not be able to explain issues that are outside of the scientific method and theory. A good example of issues outside of science is whether a god exists, art and moral issues. According to the scientific method, you must be able to make predictions and do hypothesis testing for something to be a scientific questions: that's why religion can not be a scientific question. We cannot test whether a god exists or not, we can only provide data (like in astrophysics and biology) that there is need for a god to explain how the universe and life came to be, but we can't exclude the possibility of the existance of a god since you cannot demonstrate that a phenomena does not exist. (Whether Santa Claus exists or not is not a scientific question either, for the same reason).

Like Giles I wonder, why?

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 9:42 am

[QUOTE=CM]Science is based on human knowledge.
Human knowledge is not absolute.
Human knowledge can very easily be flawed.
Science this can never be absolute and can be flawed.
Following from that Science would never be able to explain everything concerning life or humanity as it is limited by human knowledge.
Thus there may be things out of the knowledge of science.

Logical? Any flaws? Comments?[/QUOTE]

Logical, very very logical. Science can provide theories for many things, but proving them is an entirely different matter. It's a bit like having faith in something wouldn't you say? Just in math and science rather than a higher power.

I'd view science as the religion of those who lack faith. *nods*

CM · Post by CM » Sun Apr 17, 2005 9:50 am

I was having a discussion with an atheist who wished to prove that science replaces faith or religion - like magrus has stated - and that science was for the lack of a better word the natural evolution of society away from a dogma like religion.

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 9:56 am

[QUOTE=CM]I was having a discussion with an atheist who wished to prove that science replaces faith or religion - like magrus has stated - and that science was for the lack of a better word the natural evolution of society away from a dogma like religion.[/QUOTE]

If you look back on history, that IS what happened. I'm no atheist, I happen to be a very religious person in my own way. However, early humans were extremely superstitious and believed most things were god sent and such. The quest to discover what caused everything rather than claiming it was divine intervention led to a good deal of the research done through science. Unless I'm totally off base here.

Granted, you had the natural technological improvements that people came up with to make life easier. Even those, in the beginning, many couldn't explain and thought them "magic" or the domain of a deity.

IMO science is simply a path humanity traveled down that provided a more grounded, stable view of how their reality worked. There are other paths to walk to look at the world around you, but science is the more widely spread one as it can all be written down and much of it proved in figures and drawings and such.

frogus23 · Post by **frogus23** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 10:09 am

I agree completely with your reasoning, but understand that it fails to make God's existence any more likely. The class of things which you have proved to exist 'those things unknown to science' is, in your argument apparently the same as 'those things unknown by humans'. But this class is by definition one about the contents of which we can know nothing, so suggesting that God exists in this class is arbitrary.

Unless you explain why human fallibility might effect science in a worse way than it effects knowledge of God, for example, or any other kind of knowledge, your argument does not really suggest any conclusions apart from 'not everything is known', which is a dead end.

@Magrus, in what way is science like a religion?

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 10:23 am

[QUOTE=Frogus23]@Magrus, in what way is science like a religion?[/QUOTE]

Having a structured way of viewing your environment and the world around you.
Having strong beliefs in the way that you percieve things to be.
Having definate views on the why, how, what, when and where of your life.

For example, the sun.

At first, people thought it was a deity. That this deity gives life and life to this world. Eclipses were viewed as omens of pleasure/displeasure. When someone died of too much exposure to the sun, that person had angered said deity.

Now, science says it's an intensely hot sphere which is the center of our galaxy, holding all of the planets and such in it within it's gravitational pull. It also is assisting in giving heat, and light which is necessary for life to exist here on this planet. Those that die from over-exposure die from dehydration.

I'm not entirely sure how scientists came up with the information on the sun, what it's comprised of and what not. It's not something I've honestly cared about. It's there, and if it dissapears, well, I'll be cold and we'll most likely die.

However, the sun isn't exactly like the moon, where people can wander about on it's surface, collecting samples and analyzing them. Pictures can be taken yes, it can be watched from a distance yes. What can be done other than that, given the intense heat it provides? Is it not just a theory still of what the sun is comprised of and how it came to be? Just as the belief that the sun was a deity? No proof, just a concept and faith in the reasoning which led to it?

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 10:25 am

I have exams coming up, stop making me post: grrr

Have you not paid attention in your Theory of Knowledge classes, fas?

For a brief re-cap: the only knowledge that is absolute, and can be considered infallible Truth (Truth that is eternal - if A is true it will always be true, independant - if A is true it will be true even if no one believes A to be true, and public - if A is true for one, A is true for all) can be found within a closed system such as Mathematics. The hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle (Euclidean geometry assumed) is always equal to the square-root of the sum of the squares of the two other sides.

Unlike math, science can't provide absolute truth, and doesn't claim to do so. Democritus and Leucippus, the first ones to conceptualize the existence of an atom, were ultimately proven wrong - an atom was, in fact, divisible. Then the Bohr model was proven false by Quantum Theory - electrons aren't particles, but instead a cloud of probability. Our current understanding will undoubtedly change, and the Quantum Theory model will be replaced. None of those models was true. As a matter of fact, every scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable.

Compare the above with the work of, say, Pythagoras. His theorem is to this day 100% true and remains unchanged.

frogus23 · Post by **frogus23** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 10:51 am

It seems to me that having a structured way of viewing things is not scientific or religious, it is what all humans do.

Scientists do not have to have strong beliefs in their perceptions being the true ones, and in fact scientists are better equipped if they do not have belief in their own perceptions. If scientists stuck to strong beliefs, science would no longer exist, because questioning and doubting is the essence of science.

The "why how what when and where of life" is quite a big conflagration also. Science does not seek to find out 'why' (except why one event causes another and so on, which is actually 'how?') science does not seek knowledge of purposes, reasons, motivations or destinies, it seeks knowledge of mechanisms and functions. On the other hand, religions are always concerned with 'why', hence moral, teleological and eschatological beliefs. This is why for Christians the importat questions about the genesis of the universe are those of God's purpose in his creation, not whether Eve was really made of a rib or not. And like I say, scientists would rarely claim certainty in their views, or they wouldn't be scientists.

Am I addressing a throwaway remark BTW?

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 11:02 am

I, in my religion, don't bother asking "why" unless it happens to directly affect me in a situation I need an answer to. Seems like the approach scientists use to me.

Scientists DO hold strong beliefs though, otherwise they wouldn't have any reason to continue their work. They believe that the work they are doing is important, and that the methods in which they happen to be using can prove their theories right. Not always, but there's the chance it will work. If they didn't have these beliefs, they wouldn't be bothering with the work they were doing would they?

CE may not believe in deities and religion, but she DOES believe in the work she does on a daily basis in science. At least, thats my assumption based on her mentioning she enjoys her work. If she didn't enjoy it, logically, she wouldn't believe in it's worth. If she didn't believe that the work she did would garner results, and make a difference, it would be a hollow and empty pursuit would it not?

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 11:05 am

Magrus wrote:Having a structured way of viewing your environment and the world around you.
Having strong beliefs in the way that you percieve things to be.
Having definate views on the why, how, what, when and where of your life.

That would be the exact opposite of a scientist. Science is supposed to challenge current beliefs; it is anything but dogmatic.

For example, the sun.

At first, people thought it was a deity. That this deity gives life and life to this world. Eclipses were viewed as omens of pleasure/displeasure. When someone died of too much exposure to the sun, that person had angered said deity.

Now, science says it's an intensely hot sphere which is the center of our galaxy, holding all of the planets and such in it within it's gravitational pull. It also is assisting in giving heat, and light which is necessary for life to exist here on this planet. Those that die from over-exposure die from dehydration.

I'm not entirely sure how scientists came up with the information on the sun, what it's comprised of and what not. It's not something I've honestly cared about. It's there, and if it dissapears, well, I'll be cold and we'll most likely die.

However, the sun isn't exactly like the moon, where people can wander about on it's surface, collecting samples and analyzing them. Pictures can be taken yes, it can be watched from a distance yes. What can be done other than that, given the intense heat it provides? Is it not just a theory still of what the sun is comprised of and how it came to be? Just as the belief that the sun was a deity? No proof, just a concept and faith in the reasoning which led to it?

I highlighted the most relevant part of your post

Because you don't know the justification for our current knowledge about the sun, doesn't mean there is no justification; if you're interested you could take an astrophysics course and find on what grounds scientists believe the sun is a hot ball of hydrogen. All science is based on evidence we have somehow gathered; dogmatic belief with no justification, even if true, would not be science.

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 11:19 am

Your missing my point. I'm speaking in a general sense. I'm not saying the all scientist believe x=y. I'm saying that they believe the avenues they are taking have a basis, which drives them to keep acting and moving along with those avenues of thought and work.

Whether scientists believe in the theory of relativity, or Quantum Theory or what not is irrevelant. What DOES matter, is each and every one DOES believe the theory's and methods they use CAN provide knowledge and answers. This is set in their minds and it drives them to keep thinking, and searching.

This is no different from a religious person questioning and searching for answers. The methods of doing so may be different, but the basis is the same. Both have books, both have undiscovered knowledge, both have questions which are in need of answering.

I view it as simply say, a fork in a path in front of human beliefs. One group decided to find answers here, another decided to find answers on another plane. The groundwork, the basic drive to seek answers for both groups was the same. The methods of doing so simply differ.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 11:25 am

Magrus wrote:Having a structured way of viewing your environment and the world around you.
Having strong beliefs in the way that you percieve things to be.
Having definate views on the why, how, what, when and where of your life.

This is not science.

1. Having a structured way of viewing your environment and the world around you. As Frogus point out, every human being has so, it's just the exact content, the level of awareness of the content and the degree of flexibility and why your view change, that differs.
2. Having strong beliefs in the way that you percieve things to be. This is exactly the opposite of science, and what scientists do. Mind you, a scientist is also a person and may hold personal beliefs about a variety of things, ranging from politics, religion, art and sexual prefence, but personal beliefs and views are strictly kept from scientific views. Science is based around the idea that personal perception is worthless, that is why data is collected and analysed by impersonal methods and every observation must be independently replicated.
3. Having definate views on the why, how, what, when and where of your life. This is not science either, this is about how people view their lives. Again, our personal lives matters not to scientific questions. The aim of science is to describe and explain the mechanisms for, natural phenomena. The "why" we leave to the philosophers to ponder.

A fundamental question to ask when we investigate the basis of people's way of thinking is always: "what would make you change your mind?". If a scientist holds a certain view, s/he will always change her mind if objective evidence points in another direction and his or her first view was falsified. What will make a religious person stop believing in the existence of a god?

Magrus] However wrote:
In what way does it give safer knowledge to walk around at the moon than to make observations with instruments? Do you believe human senses and human interpretation of their senses are infallible? You know they are not. People can feel and believe they feel or experience all sorts of things. There is no guarantee that what humans perceive with their senses is more true than what is registered by a spectrometer, for instance. On the contrary, empiric in vivo observation (experiencing things with your own senses), one of many methods to collect data, actually show a lot less reliability and validity than reconstruction and replication.

Is it not just a theory still of what the sun is comprised of and how it came to be? Just as the belief that the sun was a deity? No proof, just a concept and faith in the reasoning which led to it?

"Just a theory" is the argument the US creationist use when they argue evolution did not happen, and the flaw with this argument is that they fail to understand that like Vicsun and Frogus describes, everything is "just a theory", no absolute knowledge exists about the world (maths is a different thing sicne it defines its' own axioms). A scientific theory must fulfil specific criteria, whereas a belief, any belief, must not. There is a difference between justified and unjustified belief.

Religious "theories" (like god exists, Muhammed is the only profet of god, Christ was resurrected, etc) are not falsifiable. All scientific theories are falsifiable. Science is a self-revising process with an inbuilt system for revision. Religion aims to present everlasting "truths" about the world.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 11:52 am

[QUOTE=Magrus]Scientists DO hold strong beliefs though, otherwise they wouldn't have any reason to continue their work. They believe that the work they are doing is important, and that the methods in which they happen to be using can prove their theories right. Not always, but there's the chance it will work. If they didn't have these beliefs, they wouldn't be bothering with the work they were doing would they? [/quote]

We do believe that the scientific method is a good way of gaining useful knowledge, yes. But it differs totally from religion since the beliefs are at a different level.

Having faith in religious beliefs, means believing something without a systemic set of evidence. One of the major points in the big monotheistic religions is that you should believe without evidence - that is the very nature of faith.

In science, you don't have faith in anything. That would kill you as a scientist. You can hold scientific "beliefs", ie you can have a hypothesis about something, but a hypothesis is not just anything a human believe, a hypothesis must be formulated in a testable way and contain certain elements such as making predictions and being falsifiable. I have the hypothesis that the serotonin transporter plays a role in the mechanism of memory dysfunctions in patients with depression, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. This hypothesis I want to test, therefore I am spending this weekend writing grants application to fund my project. Previously I had the hypothesis that different variants of the coding region in the 5-HT1A gene would be of importance for regulations of amount of 5-HT1A receptor in brain. This hypothesis has been falsified, by us and by another lab. Thus I don't "believe" that anymore.

Again, you must ask what makes people change their beliefs, and what the aim of their beliefs are.

Scientific method has produced a lot of knowledge that has been useful and been applied to decrease suffering and improve human life. There is a lot of evidence that it is useful. I consider the invention of antibiotics one of the greatest discoveries humankind has ever done. (Or do you believe the relationship between penicilline/antibiotics and curing of infectious disease is a coincidence?)
I don't have any evidence that religious dogma have been useful for decreasing suffering and improving human life. So I like working with science. That's a choice I have made based on evidence that science is useful. Again, justified belief differs from faith.

Please Vicsun and Frogus take over this explanation, I must really work now so I can't post anything more tonight

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 12:26 pm

As to the first section, your right. I mispoke, and hopefully my above post corrects that.

C Elegans wrote:A fundamental question to ask when we investigate the basis of people's way of thinking is always: "what would make you change your mind?". If a scientist holds a certain view, s/he will always change her mind if objective evidence points in another direction and his or her first view was falsified. What will make a religious person stop believing in the existence of a god?

For other people, I don't know. I've spent my whole life questioning and searching, just like scientists spend years in college learning what it is they need to do. Asking me to define and explain what it is that makes me belief what I believe would be like asking you condense all of the learning you've accumulated through all of this time.

You've delved into science, head first. Most of the explinations you could give me on the subjects you deal with would seem like gibberish to me. Why, I haven't the experience or knowledge you do. The reverse would be the same.

What makes sense to me, I hold onto. Somethings I KNOW based on the experiences I've been through. Others, I'm lost on, just theories. Still others, things people pose to me, I discount as nonsense based on what I've found out.

In what way does it give safer knowledge to walk around at the moon than to make observations with instruments? Do you believe human senses and human interpretation of their senses are infallible? You know they are not. People can feel and believe they feel or experience all sorts of things. There is no guarantee that what humans perceive with their senses is more true than what is registered by a spectrometer, for instance. On the contrary, empiric in vivo observation (experiencing things with your own senses), one of many methods to collect data, actually show a lot less reliability and validity than reconstruction and replication.

Thats all true yes, people's senses can, and often do fail. Personal belief's, strange occurances, environmental factors, etc can play with your sense. The same goes for instruments too though. If I look at a picture, could I not see things and interpret them incorrectly? Could the picture have been distorted and not have the true view of what it should have? Could the reconstruction being done not be influenced by a persons beliefs and therefore be off?

Just as you happen to use tools for your research, ones you have learned and been trained to use I have my own. Ones you haven't bothered to exercise or learn of. Who's to say which are better, or whether they can be applied to the same things even?

"Just a theory" is the argument the US creationist use when they argue evolution did not happen, and the flaw with this argument is that they fail to understand that like Vicsun and Frogus describes, everything is "just a theory", no absolute knowledge exists about the world (maths is a different thing sicne it defines its' own axioms). A scientific theory must fulfil specific criteria, whereas a belief, any belief, must not. There is a difference between justified and unjustified belief.

My beliefs don't have to fulfill my own criteria to be acknowledged as something more than a theory and as a truth? I don't simply shake a hat with letters and dump it out and whatever phrase comes out I regard as truth. I go about looking at things and deciding what fits.

I don't go about discounting the theories given by scientists unless I have proof they are wrong. I won't accept something without proof. However, sufficient proof for something is a personal matter IMO. Looking back at what scientists have done, some have given up on the basis they couldn't go any further. Others have picked up their work, and succeeded, needing more proof, and finding it to prove them right, or wrong.

Religious "theories" (like god exists, Muhammed is the only profet of god, Christ was resurrected, etc) are not falsifiable. All scientific theories are falsifiable. Science is a self-revising process with an inbuilt system for revision. Religion aims to present everlasting "truths" about the world.

Who's to say they aren't falsifiable? Because many blindly believe them? I am constantly revising my beliefs and views on the world and my religion. I use what I know, what I sense, to allow my beliefs to evolve. There is no point in grasping onto a belief that is outdated and flawed. Some old things are still applicable and worth keeping. Others however, in time don't apply so well. I discard those that won't be applied, and find something better to replace them.

Having faith in religious beliefs, means believing something without a systemic set of evidence. One of the major points in the big monotheistic religions is that you should believe without evidence - that is the very nature of faith.

Which is why I discard such things from my personal beliefs. They don't fit with the criteria I use to form what beliefs I do have.

I don't have any evidence that religious dogma have been useful for decreasing suffering and improving human life. So I like working with science. That's a choice I have made based on evidence that science is useful. Again, justified belief differs from faith.

Hmm, I'll agree with you in part there. Much of the large religious structures are corrupt and do more harm than good. It doesn't mean all do so.

I've simply tried looking at the basis behind both approaches. Not what they've done, not what they are doing, or can do. The origination. IMO faith in something that was beyond the knowledge of what was known at the time led to science. Thats it, I've never been very good at explaining things right off, my mind runs in circles.

However, I'd have to say that my religious beliefs incorporate well, a version of the scientific method. I won't and can't follow blindly. I question, and when I do, I require answers before stepping forward with those beliefs. Yet, where did that scientific method come from? That's been my point. I believe the origins of religion led to the origins of science.

The rest I could care less about, since it comes into personal views and differing approaches to looking for knowledge. Unless I go through all of the same learning and experiences with science that you have, and you go through all of the experiences and learning I have, we won't see the same things the same way. However, at that moment where science drifted away from religion, I'd have to say everyone could see things without all of that specialization being needed.

frogus23 · Post by **frogus23** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 1:17 pm

That's been my point. I believe the origins of religion led to the origins of science.

Is this really your point?

In that case, what are the origins of religion?

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 1:43 pm

Your post is long, and I need to be reading about poisson distributions and confidence intervals instead of doing this, but being the procrastinator that I am...

Magrus wrote:Thats all true yes, people's senses can, and often do fail. Personal belief's, strange occurances, environmental factors, etc can play with your sense. The same goes for instruments too though. If I look at a picture, could I not see things and interpret them incorrectly? Could the picture have been distorted and not have the true view of what it should have? Could the reconstruction being done not be influenced by a persons beliefs and therefore be off?

The answer to your questions is peer-review

Just as you happen to use tools for your research, ones you have learned and been trained to use I have my own. Ones you haven't bothered to exercise or learn of. Who's to say which are better, or whether they can be applied to the same things even?

You are being oh so terribly vague. What are your tools for research? Obtaining knowledge through reason is, for example, definitely more reliable than 'knowing' through emotion. Not all ways of knowing or 'tools for research', as you call them, are equal.

My beliefs don't have to fulfill my own criteria to be acknowledged as something more than a theory and as a truth? I don't simply shake a hat with letters and dump it out and whatever phrase comes out I regard as truth. I go about looking at things and deciding what fits.

Believing A to be true != A being true. You can never acknowledge anything as more than a theory, unless you are dealing with a closed system with axioms you've defined yourself.

I don't go about discounting the theories given by scientists unless I have proof they are wrong. I won't accept something without proof. However, sufficient proof for something is a personal matter IMO.

I sincerely doubt you can disprove scientific theories without extensive training in the field.

Who's to say they aren't falsifiable? Because many blindly believe them? I am constantly revising my beliefs and views on the world and my religion. I use what I know, what I sense, to allow my beliefs to evolve. There is no point in grasping onto a belief that is outdated and flawed. Some old things are still applicable and worth keeping. Others however, in time don't apply so well. I discard those that won't be applied, and find something better to replace them.

Faith is, per definition, non-falsifiable. And religion is based on faith.

Yet, where did that scientific method come from? That's been my point. I believe the origins of religion led to the origins of science.

The scientific method was firstly put forward by Edwin Smith Papyrus who lived in 1600BC. He was a surgeon and documented the stages of examination (observation), diagnosis (hypothesis), treatment (experiment), and prognosis (conclusion/evaluation) of numerous illnesses. As far as I know, his religious beliefs (if he held any) had nothing to do with the formation of the scientific method.
Furthermore, which religion are you referring to? Seeing as how is predates Christianity, would you attribute it to Greek deities? Or are ancient Grecian beliefs not considered a religion?

The rest I could care less about, since it comes into personal views and differing approaches to looking for knowledge. Unless I go through all of the same learning and experiences with science that you have, and you go through all of the experiences and learning I have, we won't see the same things the same way.

Knowledge is very easily definable, and as such personal views don't really come into account in the search for knowledge, unless, of course, you take the same approach the poet John Keats did and say beauty is truth and truth is beauty. This is, however, opening a whole new can of worms I sadly don't have the time to go into right now

However, at that moment where science drifted away from religion, I'd have to say everyone could see things without all of that specialization being needed.

Were science and religion ever one? If so, please point to a specific time-period and specific examples, as I can't think of any.

Darth Zenemij · Post by **Darth Zenemij** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 5:40 pm

I agree with you there Fas. Science is not perfect, and was only created by human thoughts and what not. Science has been flawed for a real long time.

Brynn · Post by **Brynn** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 6:16 am

[QUOTE=Vicsun]That would be the exact opposite of a scientist. Science is supposed to challenge current beliefs; it is anything but dogmatic.[/QUOTE]
Well, you can find dogmatic aspects in science - it definitely is based on some theories believe to be absolute true, isn't it? Every thesis is proved by axioms accepted as "true".

[Quote=Magrus]I'd view science as the religion of those who lack faith. *nods* [/Quote]
I absolutely agree with this one

In science you have thesis, "proved" theories and analogies to prove you're right - but you may never be able to take in Einstein's theory of relativity, still you can base your other theory on that because it's true (until prove wrong, that is

) I don't think every scientist is able to prove all the thesis he uses as a base for proving his own theory.

[QUOTE=CM]I was having a discussion with an atheist who wished to prove that science replaces faith or religion - like magrus has stated - and that science was for the lack of a better word the natural evolution of society away from a dogma like religion.[/QUOTE]
If science (=our knowledge of the world around us) would be absolute, we would call ourselves Gods