Is science irrational?

[Archaeopteryx]

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?

Define "significant."

 

[ToddNotTodd]

"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 don't have any biases that would preclude me from accepting good evidence that contradicts what I believe to be true. Because I'm a rational person. So apparently from what you're saying, I'm completely objective.

Yay me!

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.

I don't look at things from anyone's perspective. I look at evidence. If there's good evidence for something, I believe it. If there's bad evidence, or no evidence at all, I don't believe it.

Simple as that.

I can see where if you really need to believe in something without good evidence, and you receive evidence to the contrary, you'd be subject to cognitive dissonance. I prefer not to need to believe anything...

 

[Chriliman]

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?

Again, it's based on what you believe to be true. I believe that we are capable of making observations and employing logic for a reason. I believe we were designed that way for a purpose. This is what I base my detection and remedy on.

You don't believe you are designed to make observations and employ logic for a reason. Therefore, you base your detection and remedy of your thinking on that lack of belief.

I find basing my reasoning on a lack of belief to be irrational. I prefer to base my reasoning on what I believe to be true, simply because it's rational to do so.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

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?

If you think that science is a "pointless circular process", then you don't understand it at all...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Again, it's based on what you believe to be true. I believe that we are capable of making observations and employing logic for a reason. I believe we were designed that way for a purpose. This is what I base my detection and remedy on.

You don't believe you are designed to make observations and employ logic for a reason. Therefore, you base your detection and remedy of your thinking on that lack of belief.

I find basing my reasoning on a lack of belief to be irrational. I prefer to base my reasoning on what I believe to be true, simply because it's rational to do so.

 

[Chriliman]

I don't have any biases that would preclude me from accepting good evidence that contradicts what I believe to be true. Because I'm a rational person. So apparently from what you're saying, I'm completely objective.

Yay me!



I don't look at things from anyone's perspective. I look at evidence. If there's good evidence for something, I believe it. If there's bad evidence, or no evidence at all, I don't believe it.

Simple as that.

I can see where if you really need to believe in something without good evidence, and you receive evidence to the contrary, you'd be subject to cognitive dissonance. I prefer not to need to believe anything...

As long as you agree that all evidence should point to the truth and it's up to us as individuals to accept that truth, then I agree.

IOW, evidence should not be held in higher regard than the truth it's pointing to.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If you think that science is a "pointless circular process", then you don't understand it at all...

He seems to think he is sharing some profound insights here...

 

[Chriliman]

If you think that science is a "pointless circular process", then you don't understand it at all...

If all science is, is the process of observations and refinement in order to continue the process of observations and refinement, then it is a pointless process.

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

If you say the point is to observe and refine our understanding of reality. Then my question is, to what end? What is the end goal?

 

[expos4ever]

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?

I guess I agree but my personal history with these kinds of debates engenders some suspicion on my part that you think that science is ultimately "subjective". Well, I suppose that's true to a degree but, as others have noted, the "system" is set up to greatly reduce the effects of such subjectivity.

 

[durangodawood]

....If you say the point is to observe and refine our understanding of reality. Then my question is, to what end? What is the end goal?

1. To understand how the world works.
2. To provide the knowledge we need to make useful things.

You seem to think refinement means pointless tail chasing. But refinement actually means continuous improvement.

 

[expos4ever]

If all science is, is the process of observations and refinement in order to continue the process of observations and refinement, then it is a pointless process.

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

If you say the point is to observe and refine our understanding of reality. Then my question is, to what end? What is the end goal?

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.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

As long as you agree that all evidence should point to the truth and it's up to us as individuals to accept that truth, then I agree.

IOW, evidence should not be held in higher regard than the truth it's pointing to.

Well, good evidence point to that which is factual. Bad evidence does not. I find it rather irrational to not accept things that are factual. Maybe that's just me though...

 

[Chriliman]

I guess I agree but my personal history with these kinds of debates engenders some suspicion on my part that you think that science is ultimately "subjective". Well, I suppose that's true to a degree but, as others have noted, the "system" is set up to greatly reduce the effects of such subjectivity.

I agree. But this raises the question of what's the point in greatly reducing the effects of subjectivity? Is the point to continue greatly reducing the effects of subjectivity? Or is the point to reach some kind of definitive truth to which we all can base our subjectivity on?

 

[Chriliman]

Well, good evidence point to that which is factual. Bad evidence does not. I find it rather irrational to not accept things that are factual. Maybe that's just me though...

I agree, but there is a difference between accepting factual things and accepting the truth that those facts point to. We could have all the facts, but completely miss the truth because of our preconceived notions of what is true.

 

[durangodawood]

..... there is a difference between accepting factual things and accepting the truth that those facts point to...

Not sure I understand. Could you provide an example?

 

[expos4ever]

I don't look at things from anyone's perspective.

Wow, interesting claim. While I am a big fan of science, and am worried that there is a deeply unhealthy and irrational skepticism about science not least coming the "church", I am quite skeptical that you, or anyone for that matter, can make the claim you just made.

Everyone has a "perspective"; no one can be objective since it is a brute and inescapable fact of reality that we all look at the world through the "lens" of an assumed worldview (a set of presuppositions that enable us to make sense of the world). Without such a worldview, the data we get from the world would be a disordered mess.

Note that I am not saying that this set of "assumed beliefs" that we impose on data we get from the world cannot be revised. And I am certainly not saying this means we humans cannot get a "workable" model of the real world.

Having said all this, I think I agree with the very general spirit of what you are writing, even if I disagree with the bit about not having a perspective.

 

[Chriliman]

1. To understand how the world works.
2. To provide the knowledge we need to make useful things.

You seem to think refinement means pointless tail chasing. But refinement actually means continuous improvement.

Okay, continuous improvement. I'll accept that. Is the point of continuous improvement to reach a state of perfection? Or is the point to just improve as much as possible for as long as humans exist? So then when humans cease to exist, all our improvements will become meaningless.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I agree, but there is a difference between accepting factual things and accepting the truth that those facts point to. We could have all the facts, but completely miss the truth because of our preconceived notions of what is true.

Nonsense.

"what is factual" = "what is true"

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

 

[durangodawood]

....So then when humans cease to exist, all our improvements will become meaningless.

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.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Having said all this, I think I agree with the very general spirit of what you are writing, even if I disagree with the bit about not having a perspective.

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