Science is all-knowing and all-powerful

[FireDragon76]

I've never heard anyone say it either. I've only heard people use it as a strawman to defend nonsense (astrology, homeopathy, anti-vaccine conspiracy theories) and ignore the scientific evidence that they're wrong. Dara O'Briain gave a good response to that once: "Homeopaths get on my nerves with the old, 'Well, science doesn't know everything.' Science knows it doesn't know everything; otherwise, it'd stop. But that doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you."

I agree, though not everything we think of as scientific is rigorously so.

 

[quatona]

So has anyone actually agreed with the statement in the OP yet?

No, but I am sure that in the future someone who has read this thread will say "I´ve heard atheists make the claim that science is all-knowing and all-powerful."

 

[Steve Petersen]

As often as science changes its answers, and as often as it will continue to change in the future, proves otherwise.

This says it all:

 

[Resha Caner]

Perhaps this is a good time for you to explain why we are talking about people's names and how it relates to scientific investigation?

Did you forget? It's an example of knowing that doesn't require science.

And it doesn't matter if it's a small example, even a trivial example. It is an example of how to know something without science - by talking to people.

Only because a person's name is a false analogy for traditional scientific investigation of the natural world. A person's name is not a phenomena in reality that requires any explaining.

Memory is not part of physical reality? Human action is not part of physical reality? A document is not part of physical reality? What is it then? From what mystical source do names come?

I thought the point was about how to find out what a person's real name is.

Their "real" name? I know what a legal name is (e.g. Willingdon Beauty). I know what a nickname is (e.g. Old Major). I know what a scientific name is (e.g. Sus scrofa domesticus). You'll have to explain to me what a "real" name is.

Ow, no, I definatly know it.
It's nothing short of a fact.
A world renown physicist knows more about physics then I do. Yep, sounds about right.

You know it because he's "world-renowned"? How is that a scientific way of acquiring this knowledge?

Aha! No, not really.... See, there is some other thing that I DO understand... It's called science and how it leads to technology.

I know that it most definatly isn't "complete nonsense". The fact alone that I'm typing this message on this online board (considering all engineering and physics) is actually already enough to demonstrate that it can't be "complete nonsense".

This is a red herring. Your example was Stephen Hawking, not all of physics and engineering. So, your answer must be confined to knowing that what Stephen Hawking did is not nonsense or a lie. And you must demonstrate this to me scientifically, otherwise it would constitute a non-scientific way of knowing.

Some people will be better at certain things then others, sure.
But as I said with the "knowledge" thingy, overall it evens out.

And here you're conflating the general with the specific. Further, since you didn't seem to understand the context of my statement about "power", I clarified that maybe "ability" is a better word.

Finally, so as not to lose the forest for the trees, this started because I said identifying the maker might be a good indicator of who has more knowledge and ability than we do. It's funny that you're trying to refute me about this, given that the example you shared (i.e. you can know physicists/engineers know more than you because of the computer you're typing on) uses just that example.

But, whatever, I guess I'll just sit back and enjoy watching the twists and turns.

 

[Michael]

I would say that it is pretty arrogant to think that a laymen using "common sense" can formulate more accurate conclusions about certain phenomena, then actual experts who study those phenomena for a living.

Einstein was a patent clerk when he wrote the paper that won him the Nobel Prize, and he used "thought experiments" to come up with most of his ideas. Granted he gave up the patent clerk job eventually.

I recall having a huge argument with my teenage daughter over her acne problem. She was extremely upset at me for not allowing her to take Accutane like the neighbor girl next door to get rid of her acne. I remember her claiming that I was an arrogant SOB for not trusting the doctors and "scientists" in terms of the safety aspects. A year or so later the product was recalled. Our neighbor got rid of her acne problem but she ended up having all kinds of gastrointestinal problems associated with that drug. Common sense just told me that the benefits didn't warrant the potential risks, and the drug was too new to really know what the long term side effects were going to be. It had not nothing to do with arrogance however. I was simply being "cautious" based on logic and common sense.

I have no need to "chose" between the competing ideas that various scientists propose in their search for answers. Nore do I feel a need to complain about the process of learning.

I'm not complaining about the process of learning, I just don't want to pay the price for their learning process.

 

[Michael]

Schmingo.

I can know atomic theory is pretty accurate, because nukes explode.

True, but that's not Hawking's field of 'expertise' in the first place.

It would be completely retarded to think that physics is "complete nonsense".

I didn't suggest that the *whole* of physics was nonsense, but some of it surely is nonsense. Physics theories come and go over time, particularly concepts related to particle physics and cosmology.

Also, note that the point was about Hawking knowing more about physics then I do.

Not about how accurate physics is. Even if all of physics is incorrect, Hawking still knows more about all that "wrong" physics then I do.

You can't really "know" something that is actually wrong. You can hold *false beliefs* in ideas that have no merit whatsoever, but that's not actual 'knowledge", that's just belief in bad dogma.

 

[Resha Caner]

Einstein was a patent clerk when he wrote the paper that won him the Nobel Prize ...

That's somewhat misleading, an attempt to imply he was lowly and uneducated at the time, which is not true. Prior to that he had graduated from Zürich Polytechnic with a teaching degree in math and physics. He took the patent job because he hadn't yet found a teaching post. So, it's not like he made his discoveries in a vacuum.

There is certainly something to be said for scientific organizations calcifying and as a result rejecting new and revolutionary ideas. Breakthroughs often do come from outsiders who have to defy the establishment. As such, they often lack the "credentials" those calcified institutions uphold.

And common sense even has its place, no denying that. But I see it more as serendipity.

Further, it needs to be recognized that the reason institutions become that way is because of all the nonsense they have to put up with. And, it's a myth that the outsiders who make the breakthroughs are untrained savants. In many ways it's imperialist arrogance that creates that myth ... those barbaric Indians couldn't possibly have a respectable education, so Srinivasa Ramanujan must have been an untrained savant.

 

[quatona]

You can't really "know" something that is actually wrong.

Of course I can know a wrong hypothesis or explanation inside out.

You can hold *false beliefs* in ideas that have no merit whatsoever, but that's not actual 'knowledge", that's just belief in bad dogma.

How did you get from "knowing" a wrong teaching to believing it?

 

[Michael]

Of course I can know a wrong hypothesis or explanation inside out.

What do you actually "know" if it doesn't exist? All you might know is *dogma*, not "truth".

How did you get from "knowing" a wrong teaching to believing it?

I got there about the time that astronomers started claiming to *know* that dark matter exists.

 

[Michael]

That's somewhat misleading, an attempt to imply he was lowly and uneducated at the time, .....

I wasn't attempting to suggest that an "outsider" with different beliefs has to be 'uneducated'. I'm simply pointing out that he wasn't employed in the "industry" at the time.

Intelligence and knowledge isn't just limited "professionals", and sometimes the professionals can hold a very myopic viewpoint due to all their "training". An "outsider" that doesn't have to answer to a boss, or to a professor might indeed feel more 'freedom' to explore new ideas.

 

[Resha Caner]

I wasn't attempting to suggest that an "outsider" with different beliefs has to be 'uneducated'. I'm simply pointing out that he wasn't employed in the "industry" at the time.

OK.

Intelligence and knowledge isn't just limited "professionals", and sometimes the professionals can hold a very myopic viewpoint due to all their "training". An "outsider" that doesn't have to answer to a boss, or to a professor might indeed feel more 'freedom' to explore new ideas.

True.

 

[quatona]

What do you actually "know" if it doesn't exist? All you might know is *dogma*, not "truth".

The hypothesis exists, and I know it.

I got there about the time that astronomers started claiming to *know* that dark matter exists.

So you know the claim. Do you believe it?
Michael, you aren´t even trying anymore, sorry.

 

[Michael]

The hypothesis exists, and I know it.

It still isn't knowledge of actual "physics" unless you can demonstrate that the hypothesis is correct.

So you know the claim. Do you believe it?
Michael, you aren´t even trying anymore, sorry.

I already previously acknowledged that one might hold knowledge of "dogma", but it's not actually knowledge of physics unless it can be shown to be true. I don't happen to believe that anything which Hawking believes to be true about cosmological scale physics is even remotely "true", so I agreed with Resha Caner the what Hawking believes may simply be pure nonsense. Resha was simply pointing out the distinction between 'hypothesis' and reality, and I agreed with that distinction.

 

[quatona]

It still isn't knowledge of actual "physics" unless you can demonstrate that the hypothesis is correct.

If the physics hypothesis is wrong, it´s knowledge of "wrong physics" - exactly as Ana said.

 

[Michael]

If the physics hypothesis is wrong, it´s knowledge of "wrong physics" - exactly as Ana said.

If the hypothesis is wrong, it's just misplaced "belief" (not knowledge) in pure *nonsense* that has nothing to do with the real 'physical' world.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If the hypothesis is wrong, it's just misplaced "belief" (not knowledge) in pure *nonsense* that has nothing to do with the real 'physical' world.

A hypothesis isn't a belief, it's proposition or supposition - a starting point for investigation. It's only a belief in as much as the proponent 'believes' (i.e. thinks) it's worth investigating.

 

[quatona]

If the hypothesis is wrong, it's just misplaced "belief" (not knowledge) in pure *nonsense* that has nothing to do with the real 'physical' world.

It was about "knowing" a hypothesis, not about *believing* in it.

 

[Michael]

It was about "knowing" a hypothesis, not about *believing* in it.

So do astrologers "know physics" too, or do they just "believe in nonsense"? Frumious seems to be balking at even calling it "belief", let alone "knowledge".

 

[Michael]

A hypothesis isn't a belief, it's proposition or supposition - a starting point for investigation. It's only a belief in as much as the proponent 'believes' (i.e. thinks) it's worth investigating.

Meh. I don't really buy it. Astronomers "hold belief" in LCDM, whereas they don't hold a lot of 'knowledge" about it. For instance, the whole lot of them cannot even cite a single verified source of 'dark energy', nor do they seem to have any useful "knowledge" of DM that has been of any use in a lab.

I'd grant you that they might "believe" that LCDM is worth investigating and worth 'believing in" for many of them, but I have no evidence that they have any real "knowledge" of any "real physics".

 

[Michael]

It was about "knowing" a hypothesis, not about *believing* in it.

See my last post to Frumious. There is plenty of evidence that astronomers "believe" in LCDM, but I see no evidence that they hold any useful "knowledge" which is why they're using placeholder terms for human ignorance in the first place.