The religion of science

[ernestm]

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.'

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 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.

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.

[stevie]

All science is based on an assumed premise that reality is logically explicable.

Wrong. Science is based on evidence that does not depend on beliefs.

[ernestm]

All science is based on an assumed premise that reality is logically explicable.

Wrong. Science is based on evidence that does not depend on beliefs.

The truth or not of your second sentence does nothing to bear out the first.

[ernestm]

All science is based on an assumed premise that reality is logically explicable.

Wrong. Science is based on evidence that does not depend on beliefs.

The truth or not of your second sentence does nothing to bear out the first.

To clarify, all scientific statements rely on the definition poof 'truth.' Per Aristotleian logic, the existence of 'truth' is dependent on his law of excluded middle (LEM). According to LEM, that which is true must by definition be not false. Conversely, that which is false must by definition not be true. Together with a few other rational premises, such as the law of object permanence (LOP), each scientific discipline builds on truths defined by others, including the philosophy of science, which defines the extent by which propositions can be evaluated as truthful. That is the rational basis upon which such concepts as 'evidence,' 'dependence,' and 'belief' are defined within science. To make such a statement, you have already assumed a rational framework within which discussion is possible.

If you can't acknowledge the shared rational framework for discussion, no further discussion is meaningful.

[stevie]

All science is based on an assumed premise that reality is logically explicable.

Wrong. Science is based on evidence that does not depend on beliefs.

The truth or not of your second sentence does nothing to bear out the first.

To clarify, all scientific statements rely on the definition poof 'truth.' Per Aristotleian logic, the existence of 'truth' is dependent on his law of excluded middle (LEM). According to LEM, that which is true must by definition be not false. Conversely, that which is false must by definition not be true. Together with a few other rational premises, such as the law of object permanence (LOP), each scientific discipline builds on truths defined by others, including the philosophy of science, which defines the extent by which propositions can be evaluated as truthful. That is the rational basis upon which such concepts as 'evidence,' 'dependence,' and 'belief' are defined within science. To make such a statement, you have already assumed a rational framework within which discussion is possible.

If you can't acknowledge the shared rational framework for discussion, no further discussion is meaningful.

Science is a craft I have been taught. So I can't see what there is to be discussed about a craft. Either one applies the craft as taught or one does not practice the craft.

[Angelo Cannata]

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.'

It looks like you are confusing certain comments on Facebook with science. You wrote “Every time I look at Facebook, I see at least one comment ridiculing religious beliefs”; according to this, you should have started by saying “in the opinion of a lot a Facebook users all science is based on an assumed premise that reality is logically explicable”.
So, first you should clarify if you want to talk about certain Facebook users or about science. There is quite a lot of difference between them.
If you mix these two things, nothing can be clarified properly. Science is not based on what some Facebook users say.

[ernestm]

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.'

It looks like you are confusing certain comments on Facebook with science. You wrote “Every time I look at Facebook, I see at least one comment ridiculing religious beliefs”; according to this, you should have started by saying “in the opinion of a lot a Facebook users all science is based on an assumed premise that reality is logically explicable”.
So, first you should clarify if you want to talk about certain Facebook users or about science. There is quite a lot of difference between them.
If you mix these two things, nothing can be clarified properly. Science is not based on what some Facebook users say.

Sorry to be contrarian, but I meant exactly what I wrote. It is me who is saying that all science is based on an assumed premise that reality is rationally explicable, and it is people on facebook ridiculing religion. I don't normally enjoy being contrarian. Contrearianism is an illness inflicted on philosophy by the poorly educated.

[Pattern-chaser]

Science is a craft I have been taught. So I can't see what there is to be discussed about a craft. Either one applies the craft as taught or one does not practice the craft.

Pete McBreen argues in his book “Software Craftsmanship” that craft is a better metaphor for software development than is engineering or science.

Is it something akin to this, that you mean? Or do you intend a different meaning?

[ernestm]

Science is a craft I have been taught. So I can't see what there is to be discussed about a craft. Either one applies the craft as taught or one does not practice the craft.

Pete McBreen argues in his book “Software Craftsmanship” that craft is a better metaphor for software development than is engineering or science.

Is it something akin to this, that you mean? Or do you intend a different meaning?

The thread is yours then. I will inform anyone else writing to me that they should be talking to you instead. Good bye.

[ernestm]

Science is a craft I have been taught. So I can't see what there is to be discussed about a craft. Either one applies the craft as taught or one does not practice the craft.

Pete McBreen argues in his book “Software Craftsmanship” that craft is a better metaphor for software development than is engineering or science.

Is it something akin to this, that you mean? Or do you intend a different meaning?

The thread is yours then. I will inform anyone else writing to me that they should be talking to you instead. Good bye.

Oh. By the way, in philosophy, rather than software engineering, the concept of science as a craft was first written about by Plato, of course, this being a philosophy forum and that being one of the first things philosophers are taught, I shouldn't actually need to say that, but it seemed that maybe I should anyway.

[Pattern-chaser]

The thread is yours then. I will inform anyone else writing to me that they should be talking to you instead. Good bye.

Whatever offence I have offered, I withdraw. I did not intend any sort of offence, and I am baffled as to what I have done wrong. I have no idea why you have responded as you have.

[ernestm]

The thread is yours then. I will inform anyone else writing to me that they should be talking to you instead. Good bye.

Whatever offence I have offered, I withdraw. I did not intend any sort of offence, and I am baffled as to what I have done wrong. I have no idea why you have responded as you have.

No please feel free to argue with Stevie. I am not Socratic by nature, so it's not really something I can do. Argue, that is. Seems pointless to me.

[SteveKlinko]

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.'

Not all Scientists are Physicalists, but still most of them are.

Science has done a lot more than rename the Deities as Forces. What equations did the ancient Greeks use to understand the Deities?

[Pattern-chaser]

All science is based on an assumed premise that reality is logically explicable.

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.

[Atla]

It's quite possible that reality is logical, just too complex or infinitely complex. Poor little humans may only get better and better at their approximations. There are scientists who are aware of this possibility, of course. Still may beat the other "religions".