Is science irrational?

[Chriliman]

Of course. We do this for US. Because we value understanding of our world, and the benefits that brings. Its enough that it has meaning for US, collectively and individually.

Right, so collectively, the goal is to improve ourselves, not necessarily figure out the truth about reality. You know, figure out the truth behind why we even exist. It's easier to say that truth may not exist and just continue improving ourselves.

 

[Chriliman]

Nonsense.

"what is factual" = "what is true"

Can you give an example where the above is not true?

Facts are based on space and time. Truth is spaceless and timeless.

Facts can be altered based on new information, but if truth is altered based on new information then that means it was never the truth to begin with.

 

[bhsmte]

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?

Lets consider a few things.

If science is irrational, every time you rely on any of the below (which is everyday of your life), you are relying on something that was achieved through irrationality:

-posting these messages on your computer
-having the lights come on when you flip the switch
-keeping your house cool in the summer and warm in the winters
-getting in your car, starting it up and driving somewhere
-the food in your refrigerator is being kept cool and fresh
-treatment you receive from your doctor, will be effective
-The microwave will cook your food faster

I could go one, but you get the idea.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Facts are based on space and time. Truth is spaceless and timeless.

Facts can be altered based on new information, but if truth is altered based on new information then that means it was never the truth to begin with.

All of this is nonsensical to me. It seems like you're making up definitions for "fact" and "truth".

Let me try again. Can you give an example where:

"what is factual" = "what is true"

Is not true?

 

[Chriliman]

I would have though the end goal is rather obvious: to have a useful model of reality that enables us to act constructively in the world - to build bridges, develop vaccines, harness and use energy wisely, and on and on. I would also suggest that science contributes in less "practical" but still important ways: it promotes an appropriate sense of wonder and appreciation for the both the simplicity and complexity of our world.

I agree. I think science is a good thing. However, I think some people think science only exists to help us improve ourselves, when in reality I think it exists because we humans want to find a definitive truth to our reality. Ultimately, that truth either comes down to God existing or God not existing.

 

[Chriliman]

All of this is nonsensical to me. It seems like you're making up definitions for "fact" and "truth".

Let me try again. Can you give an example where:

"what is factual" = "what is true"

Is not true?

Can you imagine there being an ultimate truth to why we exist in this reality we all perceive? That is the truth I'm referring to.

I agree that what is a fact can be equal to what is true. However, I'm saying that all facts and all true things should point to an ultimate truth and that we humans are responsible to either accept that truth or not.

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?

 

[Chriliman]

Lets consider a few things.

If science is irrational, every time you rely on any of the below (which is everyday of your life), you are relying on something that was achieved through irrationality:

-posting these messages on your computer
-having the lights come on when you flip the switch
-keeping your house cool in the summer and warm in the winters
-getting in your car, starting it up and driving somewhere
-the food in your refrigerator is being kept cool and fresh
-treatment you receive from your doctor, will be effective
-The microwave will cook your food faster

I could go one, but you get the idea.

To me science is very rational, but that's because I view science as being based on finding the truth.

Other's view science as being based on improving our understanding of reality. But to this I ask, what's the point of better understanding our reality if not to find a definitive truth that we can all base our understanding on?

 

[bhsmte]

To me science is very rational, but that's because I view science as being based on finding the truth.

Other's view science as being based on improving our understanding of reality. But to this I ask, what's the point of better understanding our reality if not to find a definitive truth that we can all base our understanding on?

If you feel science is rational, why did you ask if it was irrational in the OP?

 

[BeStill&Know]

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?

I agree.
Definition: science...
ability to produce solutions in some problem domain.
There is much science in Gods Word, they should not be in opposition as they are today.
For example: There are many more dimensions, (proven in science), than what we can see (or move in) which may prove one day, the verses concerning the spiritual realm that we cannot now see.
Colossian's 1:16 For through Yeshua, God created everything in the heavenly realms and on earth. He made the things we can see and the things we can't see--such as thrones, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities in the unseen world.
Ephesians 6:12 For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.

 

[durangodawood]

To me science is very rational, but that's because I view science as being based on finding the truth.

Other's view science as being based on improving our understanding of reality. But to this I ask, what's the point of better understanding our reality if not to find a definitive truth that we can all base our understanding on?

For you, "truth" is some rock bottom reality beyond time and space, youve said. Stick with religion for that. Science is for what you can show to other people. Those kind of observations happen in time, in space.

Personally, I consider events in time and space to be part of "reality", even if they are not fixed and eternal, they are still real, and so, worthy of understanding.

 

[Chriliman]

If you feel science is rational, why did you ask if it was irrational in the OP?

Science is irrational if the intent is only to observe and refine our understanding of reality. If this is the intent then all we can expect is a better understanding of our reality and never a definitive truth about reality.

Science is rational if the intent is to determine a definitive truth that we can base our rational and observations on.

 

[bhsmte]

Science is irrational if the intent is only to observe and refine our understanding of reality. If this is the intent then all we can expect is a better understanding of our reality and never a definitive truth about reality.

Science is rational if the intent is to determine a definitive truth that we can base our rational and observations on.

Why would a desire to better understand reality through observation and objective evidence be irrational?

 

[expos4ever]

What to you is a "perspective"? Can you give me an example?

I suspect we may not be talking about the same things since I think it is painfully obvious that we each have a "perspective", at least in terms of what I means by the word "perspective".

When any sense information of any kind enters our body - the sounds that comprise words, the light reflected from objects - we necessarily and unconsciously (for the most part) interpret that "raw data". Example: You see a dog on the street. What is the raw data that enters your eyes? It is quite simply an array of "pixels" of light, nothing more. So when you conclude "that's a dog", this is because your brain has done lot of complex interpretations. Otherwise, you could not make sense of the image at all. And your particular knowledge and experience will shape your interpretation. Some will react with "I want to pet that dog" while others will recoil in fear.

Perhaps of more relevance to this thread consider two people, A and B, who see a "vision" of a dead relative. Person A who comes to this experience believing in ghost may well think he is really seeing that person. Person B, a hardcore "nobody here but us atoms" kind of guy, will conclude this is an hallucination and the ghost is not "real" in the "it's really out there in the world" kind of way. Two different "perspectives" on the same raw information.

It is in this sense that I claim no one can claim direct (objective) knowledge of the world - everything we know is generated by the action of a complex set of presumed beliefs about the world as applied to the raw sense data that enters our bodies.

 

[Chriliman]

For you, "truth" is some rock bottom reality beyond time and space, youve said. Stick with religion for that. Science is for what you can show to other people. Those kind of observations happen in time, in space.

Personally, I consider events in time and space to be part of "reality", even if they are not fixed and eternal, they are still real, and so, worthy of understanding.

Science and religion are both based on what each individual believes based on what they've observed and shared with others.

 

[Chriliman]

Why would a desire to better understand reality through observation and objective evidence be irrational?

It's irrational if the desire stops at understanding reality through observation and objective evidence.

Rationally, the desire to do this should be to figure out some kind of definitive truth to which an individual can confidently say "yea, I believe that's the truth"

 

[Chriliman]

I suspect we may not be talking about the same things since I think it is painfully obvious that we each have a "perspective", at least in terms of what I means by the word "perspective".

When any sense information of any kind enters our body - the sounds that comprise words, the light reflected from objects - we necessarily and unconsciously (for the most part) interpret that "raw data". Example: You see a dog on the street. What is the raw data that enters your eyes? It is quite simply an array of "pixels" of light, nothing more. So when you conclude "that's a dog", this is because your brain has done lot of complex interpretations. Otherwise, you could not make sense of the image at all. And your particular knowledge and experience will shape your interpretation. Some will react with "I want to pet that dog" while others will recoil in fear.

Perhaps of more relevance to this thread consider two people, A and B, who see a "vision" of a dead relative. Person A who comes to this experience believing in ghost may well think he is really seeing that person. Person B, a hardcore "nobody here but us atoms" kind of guy, will conclude this is an hallucination and the ghost is not "real" in the "it's really out there in the world" kind of way. Two different "perspectives" on the same raw information.

It is in this sense that I claim no one can claim direct (objective) knowledge of the world - everything we know is generated by the action of a complex set of presumed beliefs about the world as applied to the raw sense data that enters our bodies.

This makes sense to me.

 

[bhsmte]

Science and religion are both based on what each individual believes based on what they've observed and shared with others.

Do you think, the scientific method is a good way to get at what is most likely to be true about reality?

Or, do you think a person's personal religious beliefs is the best way to discover what is most likely true about reality?

 

[bhsmte]

It's irrational if the desire stops at understanding reality through observation and objective evidence.

Rationally, the desire to do this should be to figure out some kind of definitive truth to which an individual can confidently say "yea, I believe that's the truth"

Do you have more reliable evidence, than what can be deemed as objective evidence, to determine what is most likely true about reality?

 

[expos4ever]

Science is irrational if the intent is only to observe and refine our understanding of reality. If this is the intent then all we can expect is a better understanding of our reality and never a definitive truth about reality.

Science is rational if the intent is to determine a definitive truth that we can base our rational and observations on.

I don't think your use of the term "irrational" is fair here. A "better understanding of reality", even in the absence of this "definitive truth" you refer to, is no small thing. Our lives have been massively improved through the fruits of science. So to describe science as "irrational" in this context is deeply misleading.

I am not sure that this kind of "definitive truth" you refer to is even possible to attain given our limited minds and the way the universe is structured. Why is it so important to you that truth be "definitive"?

What makes a truth "definitive"?

 

[Chriliman]

Do you think, the scientific method is a good way to get at what is most likely to be true about reality?

Or, do you think a person's personal religious beliefs is the best way to discover what is most likely true about reality?

I don't think either are necessarily the best way. I think the best way is to honestly question reality (including yourself) with the intent of figuring out the truth.