Is science irrational?

[Chriliman]

Did you take it with a grain of salt?

Of course! I do not want to be deceived because that would be the opposite of knowing the truth.

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?

My interpretations are based on what I believe to be true. Are your's not?

 

[bhsmte]

Of course! I do not want to be deceived because that would be the opposite of knowing the truth.



My interpretations are based on what I believe to be true. Are your's not?

What you believe to be true based on what exactly?

 

[Chriliman]

What you believe to be true based on what exactly?

Based on the experiences of my life.

 

[bhsmte]

Based on the experiences of my life.

That is vague.

Experiences of what exactly?

 

[GrimKingGrim]

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?

It's neither. There isn't just one big SCIENCE for everything. Life Science, Food science, political science, computer science. Literally science is a study. It studies and produces results based on the observation and data. For everything. It has no purpose or goals. It's extremely similar to math. It's a tool. A method. That's it. It's not a philosophy or some religion.

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?

It is irrational. But luckily this is only your definition.

 

[Chriliman]

That is vague.

Experiences of what exactly?

Experiences of what I perceive to be reality.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Experiences of what I perceive to be reality.

By itself, experience is a terrible model for assessing reality, fraught with Black Swan problems.

 

[bhsmte]

Experiences of what I perceive to be reality.

What would you consider to be mostly likely the true reality in this situation:

Lets say you have a loved one and upon a routine physician visit, the physician discovers a lump in their lymph nodes. The physician recommends of series of diagnostic tests to determine what the lump is; petscan, ct scan and a biopsy of the lump itself. Upon viewing the results, the physician states it is a cancerous tumor and if you start treatment (chemo, radiation) within 2 weeks, you have an excellent chance of long term survival. If you do not begin treatments, it is likely the cancer will cause death within 9-12 months. The physician claims, based on his experience in dealing with similar diagnosis, this is the best course and he or she cites scientific studies of similar patients to support his view.

You go on to get 4 other opinions from well trained oncologists and they all confirm the original physicians recommendations as clearly the best course of action. You then visit a pastor and the pastor claims, based on his experience, praying to God would be the best course of action to cure the cancer and not following the physicians advice.

Based on the two separate opinions based on each person's experience, which course would you think to be most accurate reflection of true reality and why?

 

[Chriliman]

What would you consider to be mostly likely the true reality in this situation:

Lets say you have a loved one and upon a routine physician visit, the physician discovers a lump in their lymph nodes. The physician recommends of series of diagnostic tests to determine what the lump is; petscan, ct scan and a biopsy of the lump itself. Upon viewing the results, the physician states it is a cancerous tumor and if you start treatment (chemo, radiation) within 2 weeks, you have an excellent chance of long term survival. If you do not begin treatments, it is likely the cancer will cause death within 9-12 months. The physician claims, based on his experience in dealing with similar diagnosis, this is the best course and he or she cites scientific studies of similar patients to support his view.

You go on to get 4 other opinions from well trained oncologists and they all confirm the original physicians recommendations as clearly the best course of action. You then visit a pastor and the pastor claims, based on his experience, praying to God would be the best course of action to cure the cancer and not following the physicians advice.

Based on the two separate opinions based on each person's experience, which course would you think to be most accurate reflection of true reality and why?

What exactly are you trying to determine by asking me this? Have I not answered your questions to your satisfaction? Are you trying to determine if I'm a rational person or not?

In this example you're assuming the physicians are rational people and the pastor is an irrational idiot. I don't think all pastors are irrational idiots like you do. I think the pastor would rationally advise me to see a physician if my relative had a lump in their lymph nodes. Why? Because rational Christians believe medical technology is a gift from God, why wouldn't we use it?

Does it make you uncomfortable that often times Christians are very rational people and sometimes they even point things out that you haven't thought of? If Christians or Christianity in general didn't interest you then you wouldn't be here.

 

[expos4ever]

By itself, experience is a terrible model for assessing reality, fraught with Black Swan problems.

I agree.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Experiences of what I perceive to be reality.

Not much more specific

 

[bhsmte]

What exactly are you trying to determine by asking me this? Have I not answered your questions to your satisfaction? Are you trying to determine if I'm a rational person or not?

In this example you're assuming the physicians are rational people and the pastor is an irrational idiot. I don't think all pastors are irrational idiots like you do. I think the pastor would rationally advise me to see a physician if my relative had a lump in their lymph nodes. Why? Because rational Christians believe medical technology is a gift from God, why wouldn't we use it?

Does it make you uncomfortable that often times Christians are very rational people and sometimes they even point things out that you haven't thought of? If Christians or Christianity in general didn't interest you then you wouldn't be here.

Can you respond to my question, or not?

A simple yes or no will do.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Is science irrational?

Not really. But the people who profess to abide by it usually ignore it except where it suits their political agenda.

 

[bhsmte]

Not really. But the people who profess to abide by it usually ignore it except where it suits their political agenda.

Examples, with evidence to support this claim.

 

[Chriliman]

By itself, experience is a terrible model for assessing reality, fraught with Black Swan problems.

Wait, do you rely on the expertise of scientists or not? If so, then experience plays a key role in assessing reality. If someone is more experienced than you are then it's wise to listen to them. Am I saying I'm more experienced than you are at being a rational thinker, well maybe, but then again what do we compare our rational to, other than other people's rational? I do think there is a best way to be rational and that can only come from experiencing reality and asking honest questions with the intent of finding truth.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Examples, with evidence to support this claim.

Okay. By way of example, do you consider yourself to be a supporter of homosexual rights? I don't need a big long digression on why you believe what you do. A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

 

[HitchSlap]

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?

siiiiiiiiiiiiiigh...

1. Reality exists.
2. We can learn about reality.
3. Falsifiable models with predictive capabilities work better than those without.

 

[bhsmte]

Okay. By way of example, do you consider yourself to be a supporter of homosexual rights? I don't need a big long digression on why you believe what you do. A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

Yes, I am a firm believer in equal rights for all citizens.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Yes, I am a firm believer in equal rights for all citizens.

Gotcha. Thanks!

Next, would you say you believe in science?

 

[bhsmte]

Gotcha. Thanks!

Next, would you say you believe in science?

I trust science, to produce reliable results.