The religion of science
- Angelo Cannata
- Posts: 182
- Joined: April 17th, 2021, 10:02 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Heidegger
- Location: Cambridge, UK
- Contact:
Re: The religion of science
If our only way to judge about the logicality of reality is by using our logic, how can we trust our judgement?
Of course reality will necessarily appear logic to us: because we previously built logic exactly by trying to adjust it to what we think reality is.
How can reality appear non-logical to us, since we built our logic on our comprehension of it?
During the human history we have continuously adapted our logic to match what we think we see in reality, so of course reality appears to us obeying to our logic.
-
- Posts: 502
- Joined: May 11th, 2021, 11:20 am
Re: The religion of science
All science is based on JTB, regardless of the branch of science we choose to look at.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 18th, 2022, 1:42 pmAll science is based on axioms of all sorts, depending on the branch of science we choose to look at. This is one of them, I think. It is only those who do not understand science, and how it works, who refer to 'proof', 'truth' and certainty. Those who are wiser know that science offers our best attempt at reliable and repeatable descriptions of reality, with some predictive power. But not 'proof', etc.
Reproducible observations alone won’t legitimize the axioms scientists can use. It also takes the belief that those observations will continue in like fashion going forward—a simple premise but one that must be assumed before all else, making it the most basic tenet of science.
BTW, JTB alone doesn’t comprise religion. Unfortunately, the reliance on belief is also the basis for calling science an opinion.
-
- Posts: 433
- Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am
Re: The religion of science
Well that's true, Steve. researchers have certainly refined the observations and produced more accurate models, and there are a lot more observations than there were.SteveKlinko wrote: ↑March 18th, 2022, 1:22 pmNot all Scientists are Physicalists, but still most of them are.ernestm wrote: ↑March 18th, 2022, 2:29 am All science is based on an assumed premise that reality is logically explicable. The extent this religion has permeated society without acknowledgment is truly astonishing. Every time I look at Facebook, I see at least one comment ridiculing religious beliefs as 'disproved by science.' All science has done is taken those phenomena once accounted for by minor deities in ancient Greek philosophy and renamed them as 'forces' or 'random occurrences.'
Science has done a lot more than rename the Deities as Forces. What equations did the ancient Greeks use to understand the Deities?
-
- Posts: 433
- Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am
Re: The religion of science
Well I think you touch on the crux of the issue. Im not sure its possible to make a distinction between a religious belief and an opinion in any absolute terms.AverageBozo wrote: ↑March 18th, 2022, 6:15 pmAll science is based on JTB, regardless of the branch of science we choose to look at.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 18th, 2022, 1:42 pmAll science is based on axioms of all sorts, depending on the branch of science we choose to look at. This is one of them, I think. It is only those who do not understand science, and how it works, who refer to 'proof', 'truth' and certainty. Those who are wiser know that science offers our best attempt at reliable and repeatable descriptions of reality, with some predictive power. But not 'proof', etc.
Reproducible observations alone won’t legitimize the axioms scientists can use. It also takes the belief that those observations will continue in like fashion going forward—a simple premise but one that must be assumed before all else, making it the most basic tenet of science.
BTW, JTB alone doesn’t comprise religion. Unfortunately, the reliance on belief is also the basis for calling science an opinion.
-
- Posts: 433
- Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am
Re: The religion of science
Well that is the question I have been considering in more depth.Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑March 18th, 2022, 2:34 pm The idea thar reality can be logical is based on the assumption that we can get a reliable idea of what reality is. But this is impossible, because any idea we get about reality is filtered by our brain, our mentality, our logic.
If our only way to judge about the logicality of reality is by using our logic, how can we trust our judgement?
Of course reality will necessarily appear logic to us: because we previously built logic exactly by trying to adjust it to what we think reality is.
How can reality appear non-logical to us, since we built our logic on our comprehension of it?
During the human history we have continuously adapted our logic to match what we think we see in reality, so of course reality appears to us obeying to our logic.
Aristotleian logic is based on mutual exclusion of truth and falsehood. The problem is, natural language does not always consider the negation of an antonym as logically equivalent. When something is shown to be not false, the logic of science says it is therefore true. But in natural language, the truth of something that is not false can also be unknown.
For example, conspiracy theories are based on notions for which there is tentative or partial evidence. In many cases, tentative or partial evidence is the best there is. With the existence of tentative or partial evidence, the conspiracy theory cannot be disproved, so in absolute terms, the truth of the theory remains unknown. According to the more strict tenets of science, nothing can really be said about it--it at most remains as 'scientism.'
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: The religion of science
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 18th, 2022, 1:42 pm All science is based on axioms of all sorts, depending on the branch of science we choose to look at. This is one of them, I think. It is only those who do not understand science, and how it works, who refer to 'proof', 'truth' and certainty. Those who are wiser know that science offers our best attempt at reliable and repeatable descriptions of reality, with some predictive power. But not 'proof', etc.
JTB is a practical approach to Objective Truth, which is unattainable. It helps us answer this question: "I've discovered X, and I think I believe it, but is my belief well-founded enough to rely on?" Along with axioms, logic and all the other stuff, JTB is part of science's foundation.AverageBozo wrote: ↑March 18th, 2022, 6:15 pm All science is based on JTB, regardless of the branch of science we choose to look at.
Reproducible observations alone won’t legitimize the axioms scientists can use. It also takes the belief that those observations will continue in like fashion going forward—a simple premise but one that must be assumed before all else, making it the most basic tenet of science.
BTW, JTB alone doesn’t comprise religion. Unfortunately, the reliance on belief is also the basis for calling science an opinion.
Religion, like science - but maybe for different reasons? - can reasonably be characterised as an "opinion", as neither is able to offer Objective Truth, but only what-seem-to-be well-founded beliefs. Of course, many will argue, on both sides, that such beliefs are, or are not, well-founded enough to rely on and use.
"Who cares, wins"
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: The religion of science
There are, in effect, two types of logical thinking. The first, and most common, is binary thinking, whereby statements, propositions, etc, are either TRUE or FALSE; there is no middle ground; there are only two possible answers. The second type is wider in scope, and considers questions whose answers might be "yes", "no" or "maybe". I'm grossly simplifying here, but you get the gist.ernestm wrote: ↑March 19th, 2022, 1:55 am Aristotleian logic is based on mutual exclusion of truth and falsehood. The problem is, natural language does not always consider the negation of an antonym as logically equivalent. When something is shown to be not false, the logic of science says it is therefore true. But in natural language, the truth of something that is not false can also be unknown.
Language follows our needs, and so it is capable of expressing binary thinking, and 'wider' thinking too. And, if we think about it, these two are both of use to us in the real world, solving real world problems. Sometimes we can be wrong because we mistake a situation where one type of thinking is appropriate, and the other is not. So we choose and apply the wrong type of thinking, and we get unhelpful results.
Empirical observation reveals that it is quite common to apply binary thinking where there really are more than two possible outcomes. It is common enough that it is almost like logical fallacies, in the sense that we are warned to avoid it if we can. Wider thinking is misapplied less often, perhaps because it is used much less often than binary thinking, in practice?
Our reliance on binary thinking goes back a very long way, to the time when a snapping noise does or does not indicate the approach of a predator. There is no time to consider a 'middle way', survival dictates that our response to such a situation is that we run like hell, or we carry on foraging and eating. So binary thinking was appropriate and necessary. We evolved, in a very real sense, to use binary thinking. Wider thinking has no such recommendation, and it therefore (?) less common. But no less useful...
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 782
- Joined: January 27th, 2022, 5:12 am
Re: The religion of science
Seems to me that you can do pretty much anything religiously, from cleaning your teeth in the morning to recycling your rubbish to performing the experiments that your science-based job requires.
On this understanding, religion is about commitment. The word "religion" comes from a Latin word meaning to tie - the causes and narratives that you've tied yourself to are your religion.
Believing that Jesus lived in first-century Palestine doesn't make you a Christian. You're a Christian if you're committed to living your life in accordance with (your understanding of) his words.
A belief is religious when it's part of such a commitment.
The opposite of commitment is openness to evidence.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: The religion of science
I think one can/could be committed to one's beliefs while still remaining open to new evidence. I see no 'opposition' here?Good_Egg wrote: ↑March 29th, 2022, 3:26 am Seems to me that you can do pretty much anything religiously, from cleaning your teeth in the morning to recycling your rubbish to performing the experiments that your science-based job requires.
On this understanding, religion is about commitment. The word "religion" comes from a Latin word meaning to tie - the causes and narratives that you've tied yourself to are your religion.
Believing that Jesus lived in first-century Palestine doesn't make you a Christian. You're a Christian if you're committed to living your life in accordance with (your understanding of) his words.
A belief is religious when it's part of such a commitment.
The opposite of commitment is openness to evidence.
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 439
- Joined: April 11th, 2022, 9:41 pm
Re: The religion of science
I don't think that this is a legitimate definition for science. Science is about patterns in the observable universe that can be tested:
If you can test it, then it is science.
If you can't test it, then it is not science.
Logic, on the other hand, does not get validated by testing. Logic gets validated by scrutinizing that every next sentence is a necessary consequence of the previous one.
Well, in that case, what exactly did these people test in order to disprove which religious belief?
The vast majority of the population, i.e. the unwashed masses, have absolutely no clue as to what science is. In fact, the longer they go to school, the worse the situation becomes.
I have rarely run into people who are able to use the word "science" correctly. Seriously, they simply don't know what it is.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: The religion of science
However, it cannot be treated as a true representation of reality until it can account for gravity, dark matter, dark energy and consciousness. At this stage, any work done based on the SM will be a facsimile of reality sans those four natural dynamics.
Certainly dogma exists in online commentators, whose notion of science is as sketchy as described by Heracleiotos above, although actual researchers are necessarily much more open, eg. Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Bohr and Shroedinger. All were ready to embrace ideas once thought crazy.
Early religion could be thought of as an early attempt to understand the world. To ancient people it was like science, philosophy and religion all rolled into one. Religion today is different, less a means of understanding the world than a facilitator of fellowship and political lobbying.
- psyreporter
- Posts: 1022
- Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: The religion of science
When science is practices autonomously and intends to get rid of any influence of philosophy, the ‘knowing’ of a fact necessarily entails certainty. Without certainty, philosophy would be essential, and that would be obvious to any scientist, which it is not.
It means that there is a belief involved (a belief in uniformitarianism) that legitimises autonomous application of science without thinking about whether it is actually ‘good’ what is being done (i.e. without morality).
The idea that the facts of science are valid without philosophy results in the natural tendency to abolish morality.
(2018) Immoral advances: Is science out of control?
To many scientists, moral objections to their work are not valid: science, by definition, is morally neutral, so any moral judgement on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... f-control/
Morality is based on ‘values’ and that logically means that science also wants to get rid of philosophy.
Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) in Beyond Good and Evil (Chapter 6 – We Scholars) shared the following perspective on the evolution of science in relation to philosophy.
It shows the path that science has pursued since as early as 1850. Science has intended to rid itself of philosophy.The declaration of independence of the scientific man, his emancipation from philosophy, is one of the subtler after-effects of democratic organization and disorganization: the self- glorification and self-conceitedness of the learned man is now everywhere in full bloom, and in its best springtime – which does not mean to imply that in this case self-praise smells sweet. Here also the instinct of the populace cries, “Freedom from all masters!” and after science has, with the happiest results, resisted theology, whose “hand-maid” it had been too long, it now proposes in its wantonness and indiscretion to lay down laws for philosophy, and in its turn to play the “master” – what am I saying! to play the PHILOSOPHER on its own account.
Perspectives on philosophy by scientists at a forum of Cambridge University provide an example:
As can be seen, from the perspective of science, philosophy, which includes morality, should be abolished for science to flourish.Philosophy is bunk.
…
You may describe philosophy as a search for knowledge and truth. That is indeed vanity. Science is about the acquisition of knowledge, and most scientists avoid the use of “truth”, preferring “repeatability” as more in line with our requisite humility in the face of observation.
…
Philosophers always pretend that their work is important and fundamental. It isn’t even consistent. You can’t build science on a rickety, shifting, arbitrary foundation. It is arguable that Judaeo-Christianity catalysed the development of science by insisting that there is a rational plan to the universe, but we left that idea behind a long time ago because there is no evidence for it.
…
Philosophy never provided a solution. But it has obstructed the march of science and the growth of understanding.
…
Philosophy is a retrospective discipline, trying to extract something that philosophers consider important from what scientists have done (not what scientists think – scientific writing is usually intellectually dishonest!). Science is a process, not a philosophy. Even the simplest linguistics confirms this: we “do” science, nobody “does” philosophy.
…
Science is no more or less than the application of the process of observe, hypothesise, test, repeat. There’s no suggestion of belief, philosophy or validity, any more than there is in the rules of cricket or the instructions on a bottle of shampoo: it’s what distinguishes cricket from football, and how we wash hair. The value of science is in its utility. Philosophy is something else.
…
Philosophers have indeed determined the best path forward for humanity. Every religion, communism, free market capitalism, Nazism, indeed every ism under the sun, all had their roots in philosophy, and have led to everlasting conflict and suffering. A philosopher can only make a living by disagreeing with everyone else, so what do you expect?
At question therefore is:
1) can it be said that all that is exists is limited to the scope of empirical value (the foundation of scientific evidence)
2) can it be said that a belief in determinism that would be a consequence, is valid?
With determinism there would be no meaning in the Universe (the basis for religion, metaphysics etc) and thus no ground for morality.
-
- Posts: 439
- Joined: April 11th, 2022, 9:41 pm
Re: The religion of science
At first glance, science does not depend on foundationalism.psyreporter wrote: ↑April 17th, 2022, 2:50 amMorality is based on ‘values’ and that logically means that science also wants to get rid of philosophy.
It shows the path that science has pursued since as early as 1850. Science has intended to rid itself of philosophy.
Philosophy is bunk.
Science is no more or less than the application of the process of observe, hypothesise, test, repeat. There’s no suggestion of belief ...
However, that opinion is incredibly short-sighted.
The scientific method demands observations and measurements, and therefore, the use of numbers. The patterns investigated in science must therefore be expressed as formulas that accept numbers as arguments, and return them as their results.
Hence, the consistency of the entire language of science is governed by Arithmetic Theory (PA).
Now, guess what?
Arithmetic Theory is staunchly foundationalist.
It is an axiomatic system that rests entirely on nine otherwise unjustified and unjustifiable beliefs, i.e. Peano's axioms. In that respect, there is no difference between arithmetic theory and morality. They are both based on a foundation of first principles.
Hence, if foundationalism is unacceptable to the scientist, he must at once stop using numbers. He can still make observations, but he will no longer be allowed to write them down by using numerical symbols of which the use is under control of foundationalist beliefs. He must also refrain from performing computations of which the consistency depends on the unjustified basic principles underpinning arithmetic theory.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: The religion of science
In common with many anti-science people you chose a caricature rather than properly examine the facts themselves.ernestm wrote: ↑March 18th, 2022, 2:29 am All science is based on an assumed premise that reality is logically explicable. The extent this religion has permeated society without acknowledgment is truly astonishing. Every time I look at Facebook, I see at least one comment ridiculing religious beliefs as 'disproved by science.' All science has done is taken those phenomena once accounted for by minor deities in ancient Greek philosophy and renamed them as 'forces' or 'random occurrences.'
No scientist would accept your premise, not because it is not true, or might be subject to critique, but because it is not a premise of science. Science is a system of knowledge based on observations of the world around us. And whilst it uses logic and reason to draw conclusions and build metaphors to best describe the world about us it does not assume logical explicability. You might want to direct that premise at "formal logic" or even "maths" but not at science.
And calling it a religion from the outset puts you on a weak foundation for anyone to take the rest of your post very seriously.
Now you move your thinking in the realm of the absurd. Greek ideas about water do not explain much at all. Try and design a boat, sea defences, or a hydro-electric plant with that understanding of hydrodynamics.
For example, the ancient Greeks held that every single body of free-flowing water were controlled by its own 'Naiad.' The extent Naiads had free will was always a topic of debate. Naiads had rules they were expected to follow, but sometimes they were naughty and didn't do what they were meant to. Now jump to modern physics. All free-flowing water over the ground is subject to a rule called 'gravity' but simultaneously, due to the 'rules' of particle physics, water can actually flow uphill too, because the water molecules could all simultaneously move in the same direction--albeit, the likelihood of it happening is rare, but it remains true that it can happen. My physics teacher at school actually calculated the likelihood of all the tapwater in a glass spontaneously turning to steam, and found it is actually possible to have occurred once since the big bang--but extremely unlikely in the short time since humankind invented tapwater and drinking glasses. Nonetheless, one is obliged to point out that the theory of the ancient Greeks equally explains the movement of water as modern scientific models, and merely uses different terms for the observed states and events.
The ancient Greeks gave us the word atom - a theoretical and utterly unempirical belief that if you divide an object again and again you get to a point where no further division is possible. Literally A-tom = No Cut.
The atomic model is particularly full of absurdities that the ancient Greeks would ridicule with perfect justification. For example, last century it was 'observed' that the nucleus should fly apart because it contains particles of the same charge. A number of 'solutions' have been proposed: particles called 'gluons' were the original 'explanation.' The current popular 'explanation' is phrased differently: it states, as the electromagnetic force (which ias assumed to apply at the subatomic level) should make the nucleus fly apart, there must therefore be a 'strong nuclear force' to counterbalance it. This phrasing is mostly preferred, although it could equally be invisible 'gluons' with sticky surfaces on the surface of neutrons.
Beyond they had absolutely nothing to say about the microscopic world being in complete ignorance of it.
If you want to make that the basis of your science then good luck.
The only problem here is that you are misrepresenting modern science and the ancient greeks.
The problem here is the statement, "as the nucleus SHOULD fly apart, there MUST BE another force holding the nucleus together.' This is entire conjecture, created by our desire to make the electromagnetic force equally applicable at the subatomic level as it is at the groos molecular level. Due to the 'observer effect' it's actually impossible to 'see' what is actually there. The act of looking imparts energy on the observed particles, changing them. So what is 'actually' there is entirely a matter of belief.
Some beliefs have better explicable powers than others. When I was a child, there were only three subatomic particles in the atomic model. In the decades since, more subatomic particles have been added at a rate of at least two a year, on average. All of the 'new' particles that have been 'discovered' or 'invented,' depending on your point of view, are necessary to explain various anomalies that all cascade from the assumption that subatomic particles should be rationally explicable in terms of the phenomena of gross matter that we understand. There's no reason for that to be true, and in fact the complexity of the resulting model ends up being filled with so many odd anomalies that physicists have been trying to replace it with 'string theory' for quite a while now. In reality, there's no necessity for the atomic model to exist at all. There's no way to see the particles directly, only their influence. Science is necessarily a religion controlled by our own abilities of perception, and most people's abilities of perception don't even extend to recognizing the necessary significance of the assumed premise underlying all science: that which is not rationally predictable must be random.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: The religion of science
Can the map ever be a true representation of the territory? I suppose it's down to semantics, the words we choose, and the way those words are received and understood. Don't get me wrong. The point I make here is a minor one, intended more as an entertainment than a criticism. But a model remains a model, no matter its predictive power.
"Who cares, wins"
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023