Is science irrational?

[bhsmte]

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.

What is it (exactly) about the scientific method, that you feel does not make it the most reliable method to question reality?

 

[Chriliman]

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"?

A truth can become definitive on an individual basis. For example; many Christians have a spiritual experience that makes the truth of Jesus obvious and undeniable. I am one of those Christians.

A scientist might discover evidence that points to dinosaurs only being thousands of years old. This evidence might make it definitely true that they should question the actual age of dinosaurs and not just assume they are millions of years old because other scientists have assumed as much.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

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 exist because my parents had sex.

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.

I don't see the need to call something an "ultimate truth".

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?

What's commonly called "progress".

 

[expos4ever]

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

I disagree. I believe that most people use the word "science" to denote "scientific method" which is a way to acquire knowledge through making predictions about the real world and then performing experiments or gathering data (from the "real" world, of course) to compare against the hypothesis. An important qualification: For one to be 'doing science', it must be at least possible that the observations will refute the hypothesis. It is not doing science to assert that there exist other universes that are entirely disconnected from ours to the extent that no information or influences can be exchanged between these universes. This is not to say that it's not true that there are such other universes, it is simply to say that it is not a matter that can be settled through the scientific method. It may be true, it may not be true.

Religion, on the other hand is a set of beliefs and / or experiences - it is not, in my opinion, a method for acquiring knowledge. Some religious beliefs are indeed subject to scientific assessment (e.g. if we pray for someone, that person is more likely to get better than if we don't). Others are not such as "Humanity is entrusted by God with responsibility to manage the world". This is a 'religious' belief but it cannot be 'tested' using the principles of the scientific method.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

If you believe neither the scientific method, or personal religious experiences are not the best way to determine what reality is most likely to be true, what method do you use?

 

[Chriliman]

What is it (exactly) about the scientific method, that you feel does not make it the most reliable method to question reality?

That fact that the scientific method excludes the desire for truth in favor of the desire to question reality and form hypothesis. When the reason to question reality and form hypothesis should be to figure out the truth.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

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.

Why does person A believe in ghosts?

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.

What does this have to do with me not seeing things from other people's perspectives?

 

[Chriliman]

If you believe neither the scientific method, or personal religious experiences are not the best way to determine what reality is most likely to be true, what method do you use?

I already answered this question in my previous comment.

 

[bhsmte]

That fact that the scientific method excludes the desire for truth in favor of the desire to question reality and form hypothesis. When the reason to question reality and form hypothesis should be to figure out the truth.

Is it true that the products of science below, are all relied on by you and they deliver reliable results to you each and every day? How do you think science was able to achieve this?

-technology that allows you to drive a car
-technology that allows you to send messages on this website
-technology that allows you doctor to diagnose you correctly
-technology that keeps your house warm and cool
-technology that allows you to watch television and listen to the radio
-technology that allows lights to go on, when you flip the switch

 

[bhsmte]

I already answered this question in my previous comment.

No you didn't.

You stated, neither the scientific method, nor personal religious experiences were the best way to determine what is most likely true about reality.

I Asked you to describe which method you use, if neither of the above are the best method.

 

[expos4ever]

A truth can become definitive on an individual basis. For example; many Christians have a spiritual experience that makes the truth of Jesus obvious and undeniable. I am one of those Christians.

Well it seems that for you, "X" is definitively true if you believe X is undeniable. Fair enough, but what you are describing is merely a measure of perceived certainty. There are probably people who really do believe that there is a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world and they may well be as certain about this as you are about your 'definitive beliefs'. I do not deny that (1) people can feel certain about things; (2) the hypothesis about which they are certain may be "objectively" true. But if we are talking about an "inner feeling of certainty", I think it's reasonable to be skeptical about such claims, but not to the point of insisting that what the person is certain about cannot be true.

A scientist might discover evidence that points to dinosaurs only being thousands of years old. This evidence might make it definitely true that they should question the actual age of dinosaurs and not just assume they are millions of years old because other scientists have assumed as much.

Hmmm. I politely suggest that this choice of example, and the way you frame it, suggest that you indeed may have a distorted view on the nature of scientific inquiry and the robustness of the scientific method. For example, it is clearly profoundly misleading, at best, to suggest that scientist "assume" dinosaurs lived millions of year ago.

 

[Chriliman]

I disagree. I believe that most people use the word "science" to denote "scientific method" which is a way to acquire knowledge through making predictions about the real world and then performing experiments or gathering data (from the "real" world, of course) to compare against the hypothesis. An important qualification: For one to be 'doing science', it must be at least possible that the observations will refute the hypothesis. It is not doing science to assert that there exist other universes that are entirely disconnected from ours to the extent that no information or influences can be exchanged between these universes. This is not to say that it's not true that there are such other universes, it is simply to say that it is not a matter that can be settled through the scientific method. It may be true, it may not be true.

Religion, on the other hand is a set of beliefs and / or experiences - it is not, in my opinion, a method for acquiring knowledge. Some religious beliefs are indeed subject to scientific assessment (e.g. if we pray for someone, that person is more likely to get better than if we don't). Others are not such as "Humanity is entrusted by God with responsibility to manage the world". This is a 'religious' belief but it cannot be 'tested' using the principles of the scientific method.

My point is whether we use the scientific method or personal honest questioning of reality, we can't get around the fact that we're all subjectively interpreting objective facts.

However, when someone uses the scientific method they're desire isn't necessarily to find truth, but rather they desire to question reality and form a hypothesis, which could lead them to the truth or away from the truth, but if they don't desire the truth then they'll most likely miss it since they're not really looking for it to begin with.

Does that make sense?

 

[expos4ever]

Why does person A believe in ghosts?

Not really the point. The point is simply that no matter how we have developed the particular interpretive grid of beliefs that we use to interpret data, we all have them.

What does this have to do with me not seeing things from other people's perspectives?

Did I ever claim you cannot "see things from another persons perspectives? I doubt it, but perhaps I did. All I am saying is that there is no such animal as "pure objectivity" when it comes to each of our interactions with the world.

 

[Chriliman]

Well it seems that for you, "X" is definitively true if you believe X is undeniable. Fair enough, but what you are describing is merely a measure of perceived certainty. There are probably people who really do believe that there is a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world and they may well be as certain about this as you are about your 'definitive beliefs'. I do not deny that (1) people can feel certain about things; (2) the hypothesis about which they are certain may be "objectively" true. But if we are talking about an "inner feeling of certainty", I think it's reasonable to be skeptical about such claims, but not to the point of insisting that what the person is certain about cannot be true.


Hmmm. I politely suggest that this choice of example, and the way you frame it, suggest that you indeed may have a distorted view on the nature of scientific inquiry and the robustness of the scientific method. For example, it is clearly profoundly misleading, at best, to suggest that scientist "assume" dinosaurs lived millions of year ago.

There is evidence that suggests dinosaurs are not millions of years old. How I interpret that evidence is completely up to me.

Search for evidence of young dinosaurs on google and you might be surprised.

Take it all with a grain of salt of course.

 

[bhsmte]

My point is whether we use the scientific method or personal honest questioning of reality, we can't get around the fact that we're all subjectively interpreting objective facts.

However, when someone uses the scientific method they're desire isn't necessarily to find truth, but rather they desire to question reality and form a hypothesis, which could lead them to the truth or away from the truth, but if they don't desire the truth then they'll most likely miss it since they're not really looking for it to begin with.

Does that make sense?

No, it doesn't make sense, because the scientific method has worked (giving you all the reliable conveniences I mentioned), because it is designed to remove as much subjectivity as possible.

How does your "personal honest questioning of reality" work to remove as much subjectivity as possible?

 

[expos4ever]

My point is whether we use the scientific method or personal honest questioning of reality, we can't get around the fact that we're all subjectively interpreting objective facts.

Well, this is misleading, I think. While I agree that subjectivity necessarily infects our attempts to understand the world, the scientific method greatly attenuates the distorting effects of such subjectivities.

However, when someone uses the scientific method they're desire isn't necessarily to find truth, but rather they desire to question reality and form a hypothesis, which could lead them to the truth or away from the truth, but if they don't desire the truth then they'll most likely miss it since they're not really looking for it to begin with.

Does that make sense?

Not to me. I see no difference between:

1. Seeking truth;
2. Forming an hypothesis and then testing it.

I take issue with the implication that scientists are not "seeking truth". I suggest that they are very much in the "truth-seeking" business even if you and the scientists might disagree on (1) the matter of whether one can ever be "certain"; (2) whether it is even meaningful to talk about something called "definitive truth".

 

[bhsmte]

There is evidence that suggests dinosaurs are not millions of years old. How I interpret that evidence is completely up to me.

Search for evidence of young dinosaurs on google and you might be surprised.

Take it all with a grain of salt of course.

Did you take it with a grain of salt?

What method did you use to assure your interpretation of the evidence, was based on science and not your personal desires to believe a certain story?

 

[expos4ever]

There is evidence that suggests dinosaurs are not millions of years old. How I interpret that evidence is completely up to me.

Not if you are following the scientific method, which is decidedly a public undertaking.

Search for evidence of young dinosaurs on google and you might be surprised.

I am quite sure there is a lot of stuff out there. And lots of people deny man-made climate change.

I am inclined to go with the vast majority of trained scientists who agree that dinosaurs are millions of years old. I can think of no plausible, emphasis plausible, reason to imagine they are either all mistaken or engaged in a massive conspiracy of denial.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Did I ever claim you cannot "see things from another persons perspectives? I doubt it, but perhaps I did. All I am saying is that there is no such animal as "pure objectivity" when it comes to each of our interactions with the world.

Your initial response to me was to question my statement that I don't look at things from anyone else's perspective.

 

[Chriliman]

Well, this is misleading, I think. While I agree that subjectivity necessarily infects our attempts to understand the world, the scientific method greatly attenuates the distorting effects of such subjectivities.


Not to me. I see no difference between:

1. Seeking truth;
2. Forming an hypothesis and then testing it.

I take issue with the implication that scientists are not "seeking truth". I suggest that they are very much in the "truth-seeking" business even if you and the scientists might disagree on (1) the matter of whether one can ever be "certain"; (2) whether it is even meaningful to talk about something called "definitive truth".

What's interesting is that I have yet to receive a response like this from an atheist.

I do agree with what you've said. I think we all should honestly seek truth the best way we know how.