Is science at odds with philosophy?

[SelfSim]

I cant think of any evidence that would satisfy you for a mind independent reality even if it was true. So the lack of evidence is not any kind of useful test anyway, right?

The testable hypothesis for reality being dependent on the human mind is falsifiable, as we should not expect the mental choices of some physicist to appear in Physics theories describing reality, in the case where the Realist stance of mind independence is actually true.

The Realist stance of the existence of some mind independent reality is therefore, still possible.
The challenge there, is to devise a valid test which can show its mind independence. (After all, that's what independence means in that situation doesn't it?)

(Also, when you asked me to imagine 2 electricians, I imagined them existing in the real world rather than just in my head. Maybe I was doing it wrong?)

'Twas a thought experiment (and thus evidence of mind dependence). What you mean by: 'the real world' there, is demonstrably yet another mind model and is a testable one in science (no evidence of mind independent reality there).

 

[durangodawood]

The testable hypothesis for reality being dependent on the human mind is falsifiable, as we should not expect the mental choices of some physicist to appear in Physics theories describing reality, in the case where the Realist stance of mind independence is actually true.

Why on earth not, if our models of reality have some correspondence with reality in a realist word? Realism just mean theres a real world out there and our mental formulations have some significant correspondence with it, right? Or is realism a much stronger claim than I think it is?

The Realist stance of the existence of some mind independent reality is therefore, still possible.
The challenge there, is to devise a valid test which can show its mind independence. (After all, that's what independence means in that situation doesn't it?)

Yeah its a hard one to demonstrate. I'm satisfied with reasoning towards it.

'Twas a thought experiment (and thus evidence of mind dependence). What you mean by: 'the real world' there, is demonstrably yet another mind model and is a testable one in science (no evidence of mind independent reality there).

The mere fact we have an imagination is not not itself evidence of mind dependent reality. Do you think The Hobbit and your sense of yesterdays lunch date belong in the same ontological category?[/QUOTE]

 

[SelfSim]

Why on earth not, if our models of reality have some correspondence with reality in a realist word?

Mental models are what our minds do. We have no way, thus far, of accessing the realist's belief that some independent reality exists in order to 'correspond with it' there.
The emphasis of the view I'm presenting here, is on the models .. rather than the belief of independence.

Realism just mean theres a real world out there and our mental formulations have some significant correspondence with it, right? Or is realism a much stronger claim than I think it is?

I suspect there are variants of the same belief. But they're still all beliefs.

Yeah its a hard one to demonstrate. I'm satisfied with reasoning towards it.

I like the idea of 'towards', (or, points towards), there. It tends to give the belief-addicted philosophers some relief from their pain, I think(?)

The mere fact we have an imagination is not not itself evidence of mind dependent reality.

Umm .. how else does imagination come about then, (other than by way of believing it does)? Can you demonstrate it?

Do you think The Hobbit and your sense of yesterdays lunch date belong in the same ontological category?

I'm not an ontological categorist. I prefer the scientific approach. They're both based on perceptions, which once described using language, become either testable models or untestable beliefs. (Which is all I need for continuing to thinking in my preferred way).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The method used in making assumptions which set our expectations, is what's important here. @FB's 'unconscious' (or intuitive/unthinking?) assumptions are still assumptions (or models) formed by a conscious mind, whether that is recognised by the person making them, or not. If that were not so, the person would be in an uncommunicative state and any assumptions they form, are simply irrelevant to us and a non-imagined universe.

I see unconscious assumptions as a form of cognitive habituation, a cognitive equivalent of muscle memory - we become so accustomed to the same outcomes that they become our default expectation, we assume they will occur next time because of our past experience.

I don't mind @FB campaigning for distinct cognitive models formed in different parts the brain, for cognitive research purposes, but that's not where 'the cut' lies for me, when discussing 'tensions' between philosophy and science .. Am I mistaken in thinking that(?)

I'm certainly not "campaigning for distinct cognitive models formed in different parts the brain, for cognitive research purposes". I don't know where you got that from. Different parts of the brain have different roles or functions in cognition, but it's not clear to me whether or how that functional specialization is relevant to 'distinct cognitive models', or how that would be useful for 'cognitive research purposes'.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Different people experience things in different ways and then hold those experiences as being true, sometimes for the rest of their lives. Does that make them true?

The experiences are true for them if they hold them as true, and it is true that they have had those experiences.

If you mean 'true' by correspondence with 'the world' or 'reality', that would require some form of verification (assuming you think there is a world or reality with which to verify correspondence), and would come with a level of confidence attached, both in the degree to which the experience corresponded with the world or reality, and in the degree to which the verification was reliable.

'Most people' there, also don't think in scientific ways. Instead, they are guided by their beliefs.

Sure - and?

 

[durangodawood]

durangodawood said:
The mere fact we have an imagination is not not itself evidence of mind dependent reality.

....Umm .. how else does imagination come about then, (other than by way of believing it does)? Can you demonstrate it?....

How does mind independent reality "out there" negate the possibility of a mind internal imagination? I'm straining to see how those are mutually exclusive.

Speaking of. Whats your position on other minds besides your own one that you say all reality depends upon (if I have you right)? Are other minds real independently of your own?

 

[SelfSim]

The experiences are true for them if they hold them as true, and it is true that they have had those experiences.

And so, by what means do you know that then, (ie: just for clarity purposes)?

If you mean 'true' by correspondence with 'the world' or 'reality', that would require some form of verification (assuming you think there is a world or reality with which to verify correspondence), and would come with a level of confidence attached, both in the degree to which the experience corresponded with the world or reality, and in the degree to which the verification was reliable.

And that process there, is typically referred to as what, then, (ie: just for clarity purposes)?

Also, in general, the 'world' and 'reality' there, are either testable or untestable perceptual models. There is no way, thus far, to produce the objective evidence which supports that they exist truly independently, (as material things), from the human mind, which is either a nonsensical proposition or a belief, without it.

Sure - and?

Well its worthwhile emphasising, (IMO), that of the two respective bases for making assumptions, the majority will make them based on the belief way. Often those people are unaware that they've made any assumptions at all, (eg: 'it is what it is'), and because of that, their assumptions will be focused on the baggage of the 'truth' of their life's accumulated beliefs, such as the truth of the belief in the existence of some mind independent 'material' reality, which (for eg), then 'had' to have been caused by some other intelligence, etc. Truth is not the issue .. how that truth is arrived at, is.
IMO, this is the more significant distinction for them to get their heads around, and not so much the truth of their assumptions (somehow) exceeding someone else's, in some silly argument.

 

[stevevw]

Does it matter, even if it is? (Especially when its their own personal belief they're expressing which might well be based on their beliefs about metaphysics).
Just about all claims made about consciousness are based on assumptions. The question is how those assumptions are arrived at. If science has anything at all to say about consciouness, you can bet the terms used in those claims, (or descriptions), will have already been objectively tested, or are testable in principle.

I personally think consciousness is the base assumption for everything our minds/brain comes up with.

Oh .. and I also don't see that the scientific method is limited in any way there. (More like its a feature that it isn't!)
Any assumptions made there, will be testable either in practice or in principle, and are likely to have evidence based support coming from other, more diverse, areas.
Which is based on beliefs!

thats the point that those who claim that consciousness is measured only by the scientific method are making an assumption and claim that consciousness must be caused by the physical brain only.

 

[stevevw]

Which is exactly why science doesn't require inputs from philosophical materialism .. its just excess baggage that adds nothing but 'noise' as far as science is concerned. It doesn't really matter what view 'the materialist' takes there, as far as science is concerned, because that view is just another belief about what science is doing. My advice would be just to ignore it.
I agree. Science may have models it categorises under the term 'nature', but they are testable models. Science never tests for 'what nature actually is' because that is a philosophical question. Science tests its models and then assigns those test results as what it means, whenever it mentions 'nature'.
Materialists also do that, but what it means is completely different to what science means. Materialists just mean more beliefs for what nature is.

But arent those models that science tests assumptions about what nature is in the first place which have to fall within the materialist view of nature. Its sort of circular reasoning. Science can only test that which is of the material and physical world so one has to assume that everything is physical and material to test it.

Beyond what's testable in science, is just an untestable belief .. so there is no question for science to answer there.
So the materialist there, is just propagating more beliefs which just obscures our view of objective (physical) reality.

But it seems science and materialism have been lumped together.

Materialism is a plurimillenary philosophical view which posits physical entities and their interactions as the sole constituents of reality. As such, it purports to account for mind, consciousness and will in terms of purely physical processes.

Materialism retains at present a measure of prominence among philosophers, scientists, and secularized segments of public opinion.
' Within the neural and cognitive sciences, the view that humans are no other than meaty robots, our minds but fleshy computers, and free will and consciousness mere illusions, obtain wide currency.

materialism is seen as providing a natural philosophical foundation to the scientific edifice. Hence, being on the side of materialism means being on the side of science and of its achievements. Technology, the applied arm of science, with its extraordinary power to transform the world and empower human activity seems to prove beyond reasonable doubt at least on pragmatic grounds that science and materialism are ‘it’, whether we like it or not.
Materialism Is the Dominant View—Why?

Notice that those people nonetheless, also lay claim to, and use with gay abandon, the meanings science has carefully distinguished, such as 'matter' and 'nature'. So this is the materialist's net contribution to humanity .. ie: adding to confusion, by propagating more beliefs (as if we need more 'em!)

Yes I agree

 

[SelfSim]

But arent those models that science tests assumptions about what nature is in the first place which have to fall within the materialist view of nature. Its sort of circular reasoning. Science can only test that which is of the material and physical world so one has to assume that everything is physical and material to test it. But it seems science and materialism have been lumped together.

Nope .. the scientific method declares no assumptions about 'what nature is'. You're mind is just hanging onto the belief that nature exists independently from our perceptions (or our mind's models). Its a belief, so you can choose to let go of that belief once you see that it is one and I gather you don't(?) I suspect that might be because your holding onto some other belief which can only be sustained by believing in some fundamental truth about the supposed existence of a mind independent reality(?)

When it comes to the meaning of the word 'nature', there is no what's 'inside of' or 'outside of' our minds. That idea comes from the same belief, ie: in the existence of some mind independent reality.

Materialism is a plurimillenary philosophical view which posits physical entities and their interactions as the sole constituents of reality.

Right there we have a posit, (or some assumed declaration of 'what is true').
That is what philosophy does and what science never does. Science tests such notions and never just assumes them as being true.

As such, it purports to account for mind, consciousness and will in terms of purely physical processes.
Materialism retains at present a measure of prominence among philosophers, scientists, and secularized segments of public opinion.'
Within the neural and cognitive sciences, the view that humans are no other than meaty robots, our minds but fleshy computers, and free will and consciousness mere illusions, obtain wide currency.
materialism is seen as providing a natural philosophical foundation to the scientific edifice. Hence, being on the side of materialism means being on the side of science and of its achievements. Technology, the applied arm of science, with its extraordinary power to transform the world and empower human activity seems to prove beyond reasonable doubt at least on pragmatic grounds that science and materialism are ‘it’, whether we like it or not.
Materialism Is the Dominant View—Why?

As I said before, science couldn't care less about Materialist Philosophy's view of what science is doing. All science is doing is testing. No need for all that philosophical mumbo-jumbo.
Science needs no preconditions (other than a mind to do it).

 

[Subduction Zone]

thats the point that those who claim that consciousness is measured only by the scientific method are making an assumption and claim that consciousness must be caused by the physical brain only.

Who claims that? People may correctly claim that all reliable evidence indicates that thought is a purely physical process and that it is a reasonable conclusion that thought is a purely physical process.

But this does not mean it is absolutely true. In the sciences all facts are tentative. If they are well supported by evidence it is best to treat them as being true, but one must leave a little room for doubt.

A simple example is that a scientist will not walk off of a cliff. Gravity may be only tentatively true, but it is unwise to act as if it were not true.

The same applies to thought. It would be unwise to act as if thought was not a purely physical process since all of the reliable evidence supports it being so.

 

[SelfSim]

thats the point that those who claim that consciousness is measured only by the scientific method are making an assumption and claim that consciousness must be caused by the physical brain only.

When I give a description, it is my description, and it changes only when my information changes. The place where we can tell when my information changes, is in my consciousness. That is the place where I compile the information I am going to use to describe a given situation and enable testable predictions.
So the role of consciousness, and the role of information, are inseparable, they come together because the conscious mind is where information gets assessed.

The cause of consciousness, is a different issue altogether:
'Causality' as in Determinism, was never a characteristic of science's reality, its always been a characteristic of a mathematical model that satisfies certain rules about how it maps neighbourhoods into neighbourhoods. In particular, it allows the centre of the new neighbourhood to be calculated from the centre of the previous neighbourhood, and the new neighbourhood must not grow in size so badly that it becomes essentially unpredictable. That's all Determinism ever meant there. It never meant that the future of our reality is completely determined by its past. That was always a philsophically based 'lie', an overextrapolation of what the laws of physics are able to say, and well beyond anything physics could ever test.

Having made those claims mind you, I like to think of my mind as being capable of what I say there, courtesy of my brain inside my head.

 

[stevevw]

Nope .. the scientific method declares no assumptions about 'what nature is'.

Are you sure. It seems what I have read the science method has morphed into not just methodological naturalism but also metaphysical naturalism in that it makes claims about what nature is with the assumptions it holds. For example
Science Assumes That Nature Exists
The existence of the external world is assumed by science yet it is not possible to know with complete certainty whether or not our senses are deceiving us as to the true nature of reality.
Science Assumes the Existence and Applicability of the Laws of Logic
Scientists borrow from philosophy and use the laws of logic to discuss their own experimental observations, inferences, and conclusions about what is true of the world. Since knowledge of the world itself is questionable, then the status of scientific statements about the world is also questionable.
Science Assumes the Reliability of Our Senses to Deliver Truth about the World
How do we know that our senses are reliable indicators of objective truth?

"The assumption of spatial and temporal invariance of natural laws is by no means unique to geology since it amounts to a warrant for inductive inference which, as Bacon showed nearly four hundred years ago, is the basic mode of reasoning in empirical science.

Without assuming this spatial and temporal invariance, we have no basis for extrapolating from the known to the unknown and, therefore, no way of reaching general conclusions from a finite number of observations. (Since the assumption is itself vindicated by induction, it can in no way "prove" the validity of induction
Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia

This is the circular reasoning I am talking about in that science has to assume that its method is correct to be able to support itself.

The following article points out how the science (methodological naturalism) in describing how nature works in terms of particles, matter, genes ect is telling people something about what reality is and there is a fine line between descriptions of 'how'and claims about what nature is (metaphysical naturalism. Yet the 'how' is based on assumptions so science has no claim to knowing what nature actually is. I think we have seen a growing number of scienctists making stronger claims that science is the only way to determine what reality is.

But science does seek to tell us something about reality; and metaphysics, defined as thought or explanation about reality in the deepest sense, is not easily marginalized. In fact science does sometimes deliver new reality to us: we now know about elementary particles, genes, quasars, black holes, and dark matter because of science. Partly because of this, it is but a short step from claiming that science must be based on naturalism or naturalistic statements, to saying that only naturalistic phenomena exist. So if science cannot explain or describe something, it does not exist.

This is metaphysical naturalism, because it draws conclusions about reality, about what exists. Metaphysical naturalism goes far beyond methodological naturalism and states that only “natural” things exist. As usually interpreted, it states in effect that the “supernatural” does not exist, and that all explanations of phenomena can be made by means of explanations that fall under the category of methodological naturalism.

This metaphysical assertion cannot be a result of science; it is a distinctly philosophical position which must be justified on non-scientific grounds. It is, in fact, a radical form of reductionism, the doctrine that all phenomena and the underlying reality can be reduced to whatever it is that particle physics studies. Unfortunately metaphysical naturalism is often proffered as a scientific conclusion or an inference from science, without explicit acknowledgment of its philosophical—not scientific—status and pedigree.
Naturalism and Science - Metanexus

So science is then seen as a mixture of methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism which steps beyond descriptions of how nature works into what nature is. This is the unspoken assumtion of science.

You're mind is just hanging onto the belief that nature exists independently from our perceptions (or our mind's models). Its a belief, so you can choose to let go of that belief once you see that it is one and I gather you don't(?) I suspect that might be because your holding onto some other belief which can only be sustained by believing in some fundamental truth about the supposed existence of a mind independent reality(?)

Not sure why you think that. I haven’t said anything along those lines.

When it comes to the meaning of the word 'nature', there is no what's 'inside of' or 'outside of' our minds. That idea comes from the same belief, ie: in the existence of some mind independent reality.

But according to science there is. It may claim neutrality but it is hard to draw the line and easy to slip into claims that reality is only independent of mind.

Right there we have a posit, (or some assumed declaration of 'what is true').
That is what philosophy does and what science never does. Science tests such notions and never just assumes them as being true.
As I said before, science couldn't care less about Materialist Philosophy's view of what science is doing. All science is doing is testing. No need for all that philosophical mumbo-jumbo.
Science needs no preconditions (other than a mind to do it).

ccording to the above articles and this seems to be a common finding that science does step beyond just testing and does have preconditions or rather presuppositions about what reality is before it even tests things which seem to fall within the materialist view. Otherwise it cannot even do what science does.

On an ontological level, philosophers often treat naturalism as equivalent to materialism. For example, philosopher Paul Kurtz argues that nature is best accounted for by reference to material principles. These principles include mass, energy, and other physical and chemical properties accepted by the scientific community
Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia

Sciences commitment to meterialism is best summed up in a quote from Richard Lewinton

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
Quote by Richard C. Lewontin: “Our willingness to accept scientific claims tha...”

 

[stevevw]

When I give a description, it is my description, and it changes only when my information changes. The place where we can tell when my information changes, is in my consciousness. That is the place where I compile the information I am going to use to describe a given situation and enable testable predictions.
So the role of consciousness, and the role of information, are inseparable, they come together because the conscious mind is where information gets assessed.

Yes but science as a paradigm goes beyond the individual description and lays claim to a naturalistic description of reality and consciousness. That is everything is of a material nature measured by mass, particles, chemistry ect and there is nothing else.

The cause of consciousness, is a different issue altogether:
'Causality' as in Determinism, was never a characteristic of science's reality, its always been a characteristic of a mathematical model that satisfies certain rules about how it maps neighbourhoods into neighbourhoods. In particular, it allows the centre of the new neighbourhood to be calculated from the centre of the previous neighbourhood, and the new neighbourhood must not grow in size so badly that it becomes essentially unpredictable. That's all Determinism ever meant there. It never meant that the future of our reality is completely determined by its past. That was always a philsophically based 'lie', an overextrapolation of what the laws of physics are able to say, and well beyond anything physics could ever test.

Having made those claims mind you, I like to think of my mind as being capable of what I say there, courtesy of my brain inside my head.

But isnt science (science method) making a claim through the assumption that consciousness is physical in the first place to be able to test it according to a method that can only test things physically. That's also a metaphysical claim about what consciousness is.

 

[stevevw]

Who claims that? People may correctly claim that all reliable evidence indicates that thought is a purely physical process and that it is a reasonable conclusion that thought is a purely physical process.

I think you have just answered your own question. It is the claim that consciousness can reasonably be assumed to be of a physical nature which is the issue. It is the assumption that everything must be measured in physical terms which is a metaphysical claim about what nature is and goes beyond the science. At least thats how I understand it.

But this does not mean it is absolutely true. In the sciences all facts are tentative. If they are well supported by evidence it is best to treat them as being true, but one must leave a little room for doubt.

A simple example is that a scientist will not walk off of a cliff. Gravity may be only tentatively true, but it is unwise to act as if it were not true.

The same applies to thought. It would be unwise to act as if thought was not a purely physical process since all of the reliable evidence supports it being so.

But the idea that nature is only physical and can be measured in physical terms ie mass, particles and chemistry is an assumption in the first place.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you have just answered your own question. It is the claim that consciousness can reasonably be assumed to be of a physical nature which is the issue. It is the assumption that everything must be measured in physical terms which is a metaphysical claim about what nature is and goes beyond the science. At least thats how I understand it.

But the idea that nature is only physical and can be measured in physical terms ie mass, particles and chemistry is an assumption in the first place.

In a live debate the one time that physical contact is allowed with an opponent is when one is a nihilist that denies reality. When one slaps the face of a nihilist if he blinks, flinches, or reacts in any other way he has lost the debate.

 

[SelfSim]

Are you sure.

Yep. Go look at the widely published textbooks and taught scientific method. It says nothing about assumptions of 'what nature is'.

It seems what I have read the science method has morphed into not just methodological naturalism but also metaphysical naturalism in that it makes claims about what nature is with the assumptions it holds. For example .. {etc .. irrelevant references}

Why do you cite examples about the scientific method by quoting references about philosophy?
You really need to stop reading the junk you're reading and get into some science .. rather than stuff which just pontificates about it.

This is the circular reasoning I am talking about in that science has to assume that its method is correct to be able to support itself.

Science's only purpose is to be of practical use. The descriptions it produces and its method target consistency. There is no need for 'correctness'.
Science isn't some exercise in pure Logic.

The following article points out how the science (methodological naturalism) in describing how nature works in terms of particles, matter, genes ect is telling people something about what reality is .. etc ..

More irrelevant articles on philosophy .. just ignore 'em .. its quite simple, really.

I think we have seen a growing number of scienctists making stronger claims that science is the only way to determine what reality is.

Meh .. just their own opinions. Reality is whatever we want that word to mean. Science uses its own method to produce testable/repeatable/independently verifiable 'objective reality' models.

So science is then seen as a mixture of methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism which steps beyond descriptions of how nature works into what nature is. This is the unspoken assumtion of science.

No .. its the assumptions of what science is doing when seen through the cloudy fog of methodological naturalistic and metaphysical naturalistic beliefs .. that's all.

Not sure why you think that. I haven’t said anything along those lines.

Its in the language you're using and the references you cite (which also make the claim). You won't let go of the idea that there is 'an actual reality' that science is supposedly trying to access, but supposedly has to limit itself, again, supposedly because it makes assumptions about what nature 'really is' .. which never appears anywhere in the scientific method. science only ever tests its models .. and never tests 'the thing which exists, itself'.

But according to science there is. It may claim neutrality but it is hard to draw the line and easy to slip into claims that reality is only independent of mind.

The notion of 'reality is only independent of mind' is a belief, sometimes adopted for the sake of simplicity in conversation. Its a kind of short-cut .. but it never makes any difference on its conclusions. Science tests everything .. and never relies on any assumptions about what truly exists, before those tests are carried out.

According to the above articles and this seems to be a common finding that science does step beyond just testing and does have preconditions or rather presuppositions about what reality is before it even tests things which seem to fall within the materialist view. Otherwise it cannot even do what science does.

Stop reading philosophy .. 'Its clouding your mind, Luke Skywalker'.

Sciences commitment to meterialism is best summed up in a quote from Richard Lewinton
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
Quote by Richard C. Lewontin: “Our willingness to accept scientific claims tha...”

From Wiki on Lewontin

Lewontin has at times identified himself as Marxist, and asserted that his philosophical views have bolstered his scientific work (Levins and Lewontin 1985).

 

[stevevw]

In a live debate the one time that physical contact is allowed with an opponent is when one is a nihilist that denies reality. When one slaps the face of a nihilist if he blinks, flinches, or reacts in any other way he has lost the debate.

Not really, it could be that everyone is in a similuation where they think they are experiencing physical reality. There is no way to determine that reality when one is immerced in it as a subjective mental state to be able to step outside yourself and determine its objectivity.

 

[Ophiolite]

Science's only purpose is to be of practical use.

You think?
So the many scientists who have pursued careers in science because they find the knowledge it reveals interesting, fascinating, intriguing, or the opportunity to "expose natures secrets" an exciting and reqarding challenge, are all misguided. For them its purpose is to intrigue, challenge and excite. Best send the Royal Society an email.

 

[SelfSim]

You think?
So the many scientists who have pursued careers in science because they find the knowledge it reveals interesting, fascinating, intriguing, or the opportunity to "expose natures secrets" an exciting and reqarding challenge, are all misguided. For them its purpose is to intrigue, challenge and excite.

That might describe people's desired, subjective motivations for doing science, but that's not what I meant there.

My generalised definition of science is that it is a process of mental activity involving the acquisition and assessment of empirical objective observations, often quantitative data, and efforts to idealize, understand, and predict under controlled conditions, those types of objective outcomes. The process generally involves iteration between mental models that use mathematics, geometry, and other such syntactic structures to generate successful predictions, and observations that test those predictions.

All this is a perfectly standard meaning of the term 'scientific thinking', and you can notice quite easily that no subjective beliefs, in the sense of something that is not an inference based on objective evidence, appears anywhere in the process .. including beliefs in the existence of some mind independent reality, or beliefs in methodological or metaphysical naturalism.