Is science irrational?

[Davian]

Either that something will make itself known to you as the truth or when you die you will vanish into nothingness.

So this "something" will make itself known to me, and convince me that virtually all of mainstream science is wrong, and then I'm good?

What if I only imagine that this "something" makes itself known to me?

 

[quatona]

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?

Neither. The purpose of science isn´t to question something but to find workable, reliable explanations about the way the physical world works.

If the purpose is the former, then how can any individual ever know if they are correct in their beliefs about reality?[7quote]
I don´t understand what one has to do with the other.

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

In order to avoid equivocations (I know the way you operate with the word "truth" from earlier threads, after all) I would talk about "facts" rather than "undeniable truth".
But again I am having problems understanding your question: "Expected" by whom? And what does this expectation have to do with anything?

IMO, the purpose of science is to question everything, not necessarily find the truth.

Well, it´s neither.

I find this to be an irrational way to figure out reality.

Hmm. The results are remarkable, though. As opposed to all other methods of "figuring out reality".

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

To tell from previous threads, you have a very unusual way of defining "rational" and "reasonable". Maybe eventually you´ll find the time to support this your opinion.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

OP, thats black or white thinking. One extreme or the other. Its a sign of extermism, so relax...

 

[DogmaHunter]

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?

The purpose of the scientific process is to understand how reality works.

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

Evidence. Which is why science demands testability of some sort.

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

No.
Some people are just too dumb to understand certain things.
Others have psychological problems to understand certain things.
Others have dogmatic beliefs that contradict scientific facts and play the "science can take a hike" game.

There are plenty of reasons why someone would reject a fact - no matter how undeniable it seems. Not good reasons, but reasons nonetheless.

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.

I disagree with your opinion. Questioning everything is perhaps part of science, but not its purpose. It's purpose is to find out / understand how reality works.

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

My thoughts?
This OP smells like an attempt to make science look like some kind of bad thing. Probably with underlying religious motivations.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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?

How's that computer and internet working out for you?
Or any other part of our advanced, technological 21st century society that was made possible by science?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Does science have a point? If so, what is that point?

I suggest you move to a society from a millenia ago and ponder that question while you are on your deathbed at the age of 27 because you catched a flu or have diarrea

 

[DogmaHunter]

If all facts and all true things do not point to an ultimate truth, then what's the point of understanding facts and true things?

- not being eaten by predators
- not dying from a common flu virus
- not burning yourself at the hot stove
- using electro-magnetism to power your pc to post all this nonsense
- understanding that you'll plummeth to certain death when jumping from the empire state building without a parachute
- moving from one side of the US to the other in only a couple hours by using a plane that flies through the air, of all things.
- heating your home when it is freezing outside
- understanding that eating undercooked chickens will get you food poisoning
- ....

Did this really need to be pointed out????

 

[expos4ever]

Neither. The purpose of science isn´t to question something but to find workable, reliable explanations about the way the physical world works.

I agree in the main; however, I also believe science serves a less pragmatic, aesthetic role: it activates a certain aesthetic appreciation for nature.

 

[Chriliman]

Thanks to everyone for your responses. This has helped me understand how atheist view science vs how theists view science.

In general it seems an atheist will view science as something that can help them improve their own lives, while a theist will view science as a tool to help them find complete understanding of our reality.

Again, in general atheists seem to think "What can science do for me?" While theists seem to think "What can I do to further science towards complete understanding?"

In general theist believe complete understanding is achievable, but only through God. Whereas, atheists don't necessarily believe complete understand is achievable because they think they have to rely on humans to get there and they know humans are imperfect by nature and so may never achieve complete understanding of reality.

Just some observations. Take them or leave them.

 

[durangodawood]

In general it seems an atheist will view science as something that can help them improve their own lives, while a theist will view science as a tool to help them find complete understanding of our reality....

After all this... you totally blew it with the conclusion.

 

[Chriliman]

After all this... you totally blew it with the conclusion.

There is truth in my conclusion. I view science as a tool to help reach complete understanding of our reality, but this complete understanding can only be through God, who has complete understanding of reality and can give understanding as He pleases.

You don't take this view do you? Therefore, you view science as a tool to help understand reality, but not necessarily find complete understanding because you don't know if complete understanding is possible for humans to achieve.

This is my conclusion. Take it or leave it.

 

[durangodawood]

There is truth in my conclusion. I view science as a tool to help reach complete understanding of our reality, but this complete understanding can only be through God, who has complete understanding of reality and can give understanding as He pleases.

You don't take this view do you? Therefore, you view science as a tool to help understand reality, but not necessarily find complete understanding because you don't know if complete understanding is possible for humans to achieve.

This is my conclusion. Take it or leave it.

Actually, that is much better. A generalization still, but way better.
A complete understanding of reality may not be possible for humans, not via science nor any other mode of investigation. Some things might remain mysterious to us.

(The atheist's emphasis on the technological fruits of science happens mainly because some Christians push back hard against the idea that science actually works or is useful.)

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Thanks to everyone for your responses. This has helped me understand how atheist view science vs how theists view science.

In general it seems an atheist will view science as something that can help them improve their own lives, while a theist will view science as a tool to help them find complete understanding of our reality.

Again, in general atheists seem to think "What can science do for me?" While theists seem to think "What can I do to further science towards complete understanding?"

You really weren't listening, were you?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You really weren't listening, were you?

You're not surprised by that, right?

 

[durangodawood]

I view science as a tool to help reach complete understanding of our reality, but this complete understanding can only be through God

Seems contradictory, that:
Complete understanding only comes through God AND science is a tool for complete understanding.

 

[Chriliman]

Seems contradictory, that:
Complete understanding only comes through God AND science is a tool for complete understanding.

Science is a tool that God has allowed us to develop because God views understanding as good.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Definition: science...
ability to produce solutions in some problem domain.

That's a definition of intelligence, not science; and in terms of application, it's technology and engineering.

 

[bhsmte]

Thanks to everyone for your responses. This has helped me understand how atheist view science vs how theists view science.

In general it seems an atheist will view science as something that can help them improve their own lives, while a theist will view science as a tool to help them find complete understanding of our reality.

Again, in general atheists seem to think "What can science do for me?" While theists seem to think "What can I do to further science towards complete understanding?"

In general theist believe complete understanding is achievable, but only through God. Whereas, atheists don't necessarily believe complete understand is achievable because they think they have to rely on humans to get there and they know humans are imperfect by nature and so may never achieve complete understanding of reality.

Just some observations. Take them or leave them.

Since your conclusions are completely self serving of your original intent with this OP and clearly demonstrate you ignored the points made by many, I will leave them.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Since your conclusions are completely self serving of your original intent with this OP and clearly demonstrate you ignored the points made by many, I will leave them.

I have a strong desire to turn the tables and create a thread that asks a clearly false question like "Do all Christians abuse their kids?", ignore or argue with what everyone says and then conclude "Yes, all Christians abuse their kids".

But I don't think the message will get through...

 

[durangodawood]

Science is a tool that God has allowed us to develop because God views understanding as good.

As we are capable of 1. observation and 2. reason, and we are curious, its inevitable we developed science as a method. If you think it was God's goal that we posses those capacities, that makes a certain Christian sense.