Is science irrational?

[Chriliman]

Is the purpose of science to continue questioning everything indefinitely?

OR

Is the purpose of science to continue questioning everything until an undeniable truth is found?

If the purpose is the former, then how can any individual ever know if they are correct in their beliefs about reality?

If the purpose is the latter, then wouldn't each individual be expected to accept the undeniable truth?

IMO, the purpose of science is to question everything, not necessarily find the truth. I find this to be an irrational way to figure out reality.

The most rational way to view reality is to question it with the intent of finding the truth.

Thoughts?

 

[durangodawood]

I think science is a method for investigation into the material world, for the purpose of developing the best explanation of how it works. "Undeniable truth" is not a requirement for success in the endeavor.

 

[Chriliman]

I think science is a method for investigation into the material world, for the purpose of developing the best explanation of how it works. "Undeniable truth" is not a requirement for success in the endeavor.

So the "best explanation of how it works" is based on subjective opinions of scientists?

To me it seems more rational to say "best explanation of how it works is based on the undeniable truth" meaning if you deny the truth you immediately render yourself irrational.

Other than truth, what should a scientist base his explanation of how things work on? His personal opinion?

 

[durangodawood]

So the "best explanation of how it works" is based on subjective opinions of scientists?....

"Best" based on objective evaluation, meaning how well it comports with what we can observe and share with other people.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So the "best explanation of how it works" is based on subjective opinions of scientists?

No.

 

[Chriliman]

"Best" based on objective evaluation, meaning how well it comports with what we can observe and share with other people.

The objective evaluation is done by a subjective person. He is subjectively evaluating something as objectively as humanly possible. The degree of objectivity will vary depending on which human is evaluating.

Who's the best human to pick to be as objective as possible when evaluating something?

 

[Chriliman]

No.

I asked for thoughts, not assertions.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I asked for thoughts, not assertions.

The irony in this comment is just too much to bear.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The objective evaluation is done by a subjective person. He is subjectively evaluating something as objectively as humanly possible. The degree of objectivity will vary depending on which human is evaluating.

Who's the best human to pick to be as objective as possible when evaluating something?

Your grasp of the words "subjective" and "objective" is pretty shaky...

 

[Chriliman]

The irony in this comment is just too much to bear.

Is it your opinion that I'm not allowed to think and express ideas because I claim to be Christian? Or is it because I'm Christian that you choose to regard me as already lost? Do you have hope that I will see the light, eventually?

 

[durangodawood]

The objective evaluation is done by a subjective person. He is subjectively evaluating something as objectively as humanly possible. The degree of objectivity will vary depending on which human is evaluating.

Who's the best human to pick to be as objective as possible when evaluating something?

Its not just one arbiter. Most science is done in teams, then reviewed by other scientists, then published for even greater scrutiny. Individual humans are naturally biased in certain ways, so the system is designed to correct for that. "Bad" stuff gets through the process sometimes, but it gets found out sooner or later.

 

[Chriliman]

Your grasp of the words "subjective" and "objective" is pretty shaky...

We are all subjective by nature, but are capable of being objective to a degree. However, the objectivity we can attain will always be restricted to some degree by our natural subjectivity.

You disagree with this assessment?

 

[Chriliman]

Its not just one arbiter. Most science is done in teams, then reviewed by other scientists, then published for even greater scrutiny. Individual humans are naturally biased in certain ways, so the system is designed to correct for that. "Bad" stuff gets through the process sometimes, but it gets found out sooner or later.

Sure, but this "bad stuff" is found as a result of scrutiny based on what? "Good stuff"? Who determines what is "good stuff"?

 

[durangodawood]

Sure, but this "bad stuff" is found as a result of scrutiny based on what? "Good stuff"? Who determines what is "good stuff"?

Scrutiny based on lots of expert eyes looking at it to determine if there are flaws in the method, or if the predictions made dont pan out as expected over time and multiple observations.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Is it your opinion that I'm not allowed to think and express ideas because I claim to be Christian? Or is it because I'm Christian that you choose to regard me as already lost? Do you have hope that I will see the light, eventually?

Refer to this question, which I posed to you in another thread.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

We are all subjective by nature, but are capable of being objective to a degree. However, the objectivity we can attain will always be restricted to some degree by our natural subjectivity.

You disagree with this assessment?

What, to you, do the phrases "subjective by nature" and "objective to a degree" mean? Because I would never use either of them...

 

[Chriliman]

What, to you, do the phrases "subjective by nature" and "objective to a degree" mean? Because I would never use either of them...

"subjective by nature" means we're all restricted to our personal perspectives. "objective to a degree" means we can try to look at things without bias, but in reality we are all bias to some degree because we have personal perspectives that we cannot escape.

I can look at things from your perspective, but eventually things will begin to not makes sense to me because I'm basing my perspective on what I believe to be true.

You can look at things from my perspective, but that would mean you'd have to accept what I believe to be true. You do not believe God is true, therefore, it's impossible for you to be objective when considering my perspective.

 

[Chriliman]

Refer to this question, which I posed to you in another thread.

How do you find truth if not by detecting and remedying errors in your thinking?

It's not about detecting and remedying errors in my thinking, it's about realizing that truth is something I cannot change and therefore must accept as true.

I can detect and remedy errors in my thinking all day, but if I have no basis for this detection and remedying then I'm simply wasting my time.

 

[Chriliman]

Scrutiny based on lots of expert eyes looking at it to determine if there are flaws in the method, or if the predictions made dont pan out as expected over time and multiple observations.

So the purpose of this process of observation and refinement is to continue the process of observation and refinement?

Shouldn't the purpose be to reach some kind of ultimate conclusion(truth) about reality?

Or do we continue assuming they're might not be an ultimate conclusion so we can continue with the pointless circular process that isn't leading anywhere significant? Or is it leading to something significant?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It's not about detecting and remedying errors in my thinking, it's about realizing that truth is something I cannot change and therefore must accept as true.

I can detect and remedy errors in my thinking all day, but if I have no basis for this detection and remedying then I'm simply wasting my time.

How can you accept it as true, or even find out that it is true, if not by at least attempting to detect and remedy errors in your thinking?