Why Science is Awesome

[hak]

I don't think you can take man out of science, or science out of man. Even if a computer ran the data, it is through a program developed by man.
A person could argue, that man is a construct of his environment, of nature and therefore, is innately connected to the universal truth. So what's the difference between "man-made" and "natural" I think these arguments become philosophical and semantical, depending on your "reality-tunnel."

Mathematics is another language, and just like all languages, skews the understandings of the people who speak them. It can offer insight to understanding how things work, it is a more "pure" language then say.. english. And it often does lead people to discoveries. I was speaking to someone on arrays, his wife was doing research into arrays within arrays within arrays, and I had a brilliant flash of insight into the 4th dimension, that I could only get through abstract understanding. Without having even a superficial understanding of arrays, i wouldn't have developed that insight. But mathmatics isn't a "spiritual" language, it is not a visual language, you can't get in a philosophical debate, you can't express your feelings or humanity with it.. you can't capture a "beautiful moment" mathematically. It has it's limitations.

Science is A tool for understanding the universe.. but the community is rigid, and I think because the language is so strict (and it has to be) that it tends to make scientist myopic. The best ones are the ones who can be creative.. and creativity doesn't work well when you are myopic.

Angelo..apples rock.. for now.. .

---------- Post added at 07:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:52 AM ----------

Science is about acquiring reliable knowledge.

Totally agree!

]I thought the conversation is about the superiority of science as a means for understanding the world and constructing reliable world-views not its affect on the individual human's behavior involved in it.

Conversations tend to be fluid, but i think the point is man corrupts science. And you can't separate the two... but that is a philosophical debate I'm not sure I'm interested in.

To my limited knowledge neither religious faith, revealed knowledge, nor superstition has produced a single vaccine, power source, or life saving device.

I'm sure there is a reason why Jewish tradition has stringent rules on food (pork & parasites). Plant medicine, meditation, yoga, chakra medicine, placebo, and shamanism was around long before "science". I think people had developed other ways of understanding that might have been dumbed down. Just wild speculation.

Alternately through the application of the scientific method humanity has cured numerous diseases, saved countless lives, and relieved untold human suffering through the science of medicine and engineering,

Totally Awesome!

Science is our best tool (currently) for understanding the laws of our universe, I think people balk because so many scientist deny someone their reality. And statics OMG..
I've heard scientist say.. when wearing their science hats, really stupid things.
But when they take their hat off.. they can say.. well.. I believe xy&z, even though I have no proof but my scientific training says I have no reason for that belief. So the limitations of the lens skews the viewpoint.

And if you understand it has pretty substantial limitations, then it is like a child understanding that their parent isn't god after all.

 

[plumbbob12]

I think you are missing the point. One cannot separate the human behavior and the scientific method, although we keep trying. The argument you are putting forward has once again, been around for thousands of years Pythagoras thought of mathematics as part of the perfect and eternal, while he thought of the visible world, including humanity, as separate and corruptible. This kind of separation has been the basics of arguments for some time. I think the point I and others are attempting to make is that one cannot separate the two. Science and math are constructs of human thought and therefore given to imperfections, both in the human emotive area, and in the application of western thought. Review the ideas in the argument that mathematics is flawed by reviewing Russell’s paradox where it was shown that mathematical set theory has some very deep flaws. With that said, it is the best we have, and being a chemist, I am very involved with science. I just see the human limitations, both in the development of it, and the human factor involved in interpretation of data. Of course one can take the Pythagorean side, and say that science and mathematics are separate from humans, and perfect, which begs the question of who, or what was the source of these logical tools, and this leads one kicking and screaming back into the realm of classical religion.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
Sorry about the comment of “child molestation” as it applies to humanities darker side. I did not mean to hurt the feelings of our genteel readers. It is just that this episode in religious behavior is usually brought up by most of the logical positivist who want to show just how crazy some religious folks can get.<o></o>
<o> </o>
<o> </o>

 

[trainedobserver]

I don't recall anyone claiming that the scientific method is perfect, just that it is the best we have come up with as a species thus far. It's a funny thing that for all of the discussion about the problems with science, including the misdirected bit about the human frailties of scientists themselves, has failed to suggest a viable alternative to the scientific method for producing reliable information about the world. Information about the world produced through or provided by superstition, mysticism, religious faith, and revealed knowledge (such as prophecies or channeled things) reliably fails and none of these methods for understanding the world has a way of correcting itself when shown to incorrect. The prophet's of the gods don't readily admit their mistakes if you see what I'm getting at.

 

[Hotkafka]

Dear Ghad.... I think it's time for a little interjection from our friend Terrence Mckenna, on the subject of science.

"...Your science is going to be shown up for what it is, nothing more than a pleasant metaphor usefully extrapolated into the production of toys for healthy children. That's what science is good for.
It is not some meta-theory at whose feet every point of view from astrology to acupressure to channeling need be laid to have the hand of science announce thumbs up or thumbs down."

 

[trainedobserver]

How ironic. Here we are communicating with each other by a means unprecedented in all of human history, provided solely through the disciplined use of the scientific method and the scientific method alone. Woo-woo (and I use that term loosely) has nothing to do with our ability to share these ideas. Yet there still appears to be some vague inference that knowledge acquired through the application of science does not totally eclipse all other known methods.

I still don't get what people think replaces or augments the scientific method in acquiring reliable actionable information about the world around us. Granted, the scientific method is not perfect. It provides reliable results and provides a means to replace faulty or incomplete knowledge with new more complete knowledge. That's all it is really. It's periodic misuse and distortion is a given seeing as how imperfect human beings dreamed the concept up and implement it.

 

[Hotkafka]

How ironic. Here we are communicating with each other by a means unprecedented in all of human history, provided solely through the disciplined use of the scientific method and the scientific method alone. Woo-woo (and I use that term loosely) has nothing to do with our ability to share these ideas. Yet there still appears to be some vague inference that knowledge acquired through the application of science does not totally eclipse all other known methods.

I still don't get what people think replaces or augments the scientific method in acquiring reliable actionable information about the world around us. Granted, the scientific method is not perfect. It provides reliable results and provides a means to replace faulty or incomplete knowledge with new more complete knowledge. That's all it is really. It's periodic misuse and distortion is a given seeing as how imperfect human beings dreamed the concept up and implement it.

..........lol!

 

[plumbbob12]

Your question about what is the “best” form of knowledge is right out of the Richard Dawkins book. This is like asking “which is better, a humming bird, or a basket ball”. The two have no relation to each other. Science does nothing to answer questions on ethics. Science can just as easily build a military virus, or a vaccine. They can just as easily build an atomic bomb, or a nuclear power plant. Religion and ethics is what gives humans the questions of right or wrong, and it has nothing to do with the data gathering of science. I believe in a conscience universe, (or “God” if you will), this has no effect on my science.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o> </o>

 

[trainedobserver]

Your question about what is the “best” form of knowledge is right out of the Richard Dawkins book.

Who said anything about a "best form of knowledge?"

I'm talking about the best and most reliable means to acquire knowledge.

There are very real and very important differences in the way people acquire what they accept as knowledge. If the method by which you determine if something is true or not is faulty or proven to not provide repeatable, reliable results, then why use it?

Religion and ethics is what gives humans the questions of right or wrong, and it has nothing to do with the data gathering of science.

Sure it does. What a hoot! I guess that is why non-believers are viewed as infidels worthy of death by a certain religion and certain religious folks. You live on the same planet I do? LOL.

Human beings and their needs are more important than any God, gods, aliens, or supernatural beings humans have imagined. The very human capacity for empathy is all that is needed to conduct yourself in an ethical and moral manner, not edicts from gods, aliens, or their representatives.

I've had this conversation so many times and it never gets anywhere. I'll put my bet on science before I will religion, mysticism, or any other means of acquiring knowledge that I know. Your mileage may vary.

 

[hak]

Human beings and their needs are more important than any God, gods, aliens, or supernatural beings humans have imagined. The very human capacity for empathy is all that is needed to conduct yourself in an ethical and moral manner, not edicts from gods, aliens, or their representatives.

I know MANY people who need the guidance of a religion, a philosophy or ethics and that doesn't make them any less of a person, rather perhaps a person who understands they have limitations(?). A 13 year old does not have the same wordly understanding or ethics as a 40 year old..
Empathy is great, but it has limitations. Situational ethics will always rule one's current empathy.

 

[trainedobserver]

I know MANY people who need the guidance of a religion, a philosophy or ethics and that doesn't make them any less of a person, rather perhaps a person who understands they have limitations(?). A 13 year old does not have the same wordly understanding or ethics as a 40 year old.. Empathy is great, but it has limitations. Situational ethics will always rule one's current empathy.

Is it required, necessary, or even marginally beneficial that they believe the fantasy that their philosophy of life or ethics come from some non-human or supernatural source?

A normal 13 year old child need only have empathy for her fellow human beings to know she shouldn't cause harm to others. It doesn't require a lot of naval staring or supernatural edicts, threats, or intimidation. If fear of punishment is required its because their ability to relate to others as equals who think, feel, and hurt just like she does is lacking. A lot of people need extra help in this regard. Making things up to threaten them (hell, god's disfavor, or whatever) with isn't the way to go, it just causes more problems as the state of the world should suggest..

Where do you want or require your ethics to come from then? Does it really require a supernatural being? Which supernatural being? Why that one?

 

[hak]

A normal 13 year old child need only have empathy for her fellow human beings to know she shouldn't cause harm to others.

Did you not go to middle-school?

It doesn't require a lot of naval staring or supernatural edicts, threats, or intimidation.

Perhaps you are lucky to have a healthy dose of empathy, but may i suggest that your projecting yourself a little?

Where do you want or require your ethics to come from then? Does it really require a supernatural being? Which supernatural being? Why that one?

I don't care where or how people develop their ethics or morals.. as long as it does no harm, and they accept me as I accept them. If people feel comfortable believing in something other then science, where is the harm, i don't see why it is an issue and the intolerance for it feels more like a form of prejudice.

 

[plumbbob12]

What "bet"? Science has nothing to do with ethics other than rules like GLP, and animal cruelty laws that come from outside sources. I think your argument is a non-issue. Science is a great way to acquire knowledge, but one has to define what kind of knowledge we are talking about. I can acquire knowledge from art, music, and ethics, and yes, even religion which stretches our minds to ask questions, and think of things in a different way. There is no competition. This is not mutually exclusive. I can believe in God, and be a good researcher. If you don’t like religion, good for you. No one is trying to make you believe. No one is insulting you. Good luck.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o> </o>

 

[Hotkafka]

This thread appears to be a setup, once again setting the stage for a pointless polemic. Not wanting to invoke the fury of the positivists among us, I'll just say that science is rather good at defining our boundaries. A preparation of sorts for the inevitably possibility that these boundaries are in fact illusory.

 

[hak]

I had to look up polemic, but that is exactly what this is.

 

[plumbbob12]

Yea, hak, same here. I read this and said, "What the hell does polemic mean"? Thanks for stretching my vocabulary Hotkafka!
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o> </o>

 

[trainedobserver]

I think Angelo was bored and wanted to stir up trouble. He is Canadian and you know what trouble makers those guys are. Sheesh! Then he runs off and leaves me here by myself today.

Glory! You guys have won me over! I see the light! Science is totally unnecessary! We've got religion, dreams, and all manner of woo-woo telling us that the universe is ruled by inhuman supernatural beings who know best! Science? Bah! I got my dreams and the prophetess Bridgett to tell me what I need to do! I don't need no stink'n science or them close-minded scientists!

You know, Angelo's statement about science was simply "This is why science works - it learns from mistakes." implying that other methods of acquiring knowledge (no, I won't list them again) do not learn from their mistakes so much. From that came all that followed. Nyuk, nyuk.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Science can't work unless it's applied by humans. It's like electricity, a great tool if used properly. If used incorrectly it can cause great harm. Science, or more correctly the sciences, are not, of themselves, self learning or aware. Science evolves as the the scientists evolve, as they learn. Science itself doesn't learn from mistakes, the people utilising it sometimes do- eventually. If the conditions are right the people using science can achieve a whole lot of good for humanity in the way of educating ourselves about our surroundings, the earth, the universe etc.
Personally, I love science and all of the positive things they have done for us. I am disappointed that some scientists and their employers have used their skills to create harmful environments for some of us or to create weapons of mass destruction, biological or otherwise.
I do not, however, need science to explain every single aspect of my life to me. Not all of the things i have experienced in my life require a scientific explanation and i am comfortable that most of those things i have been able to explain, myself, to my satisfaction.
I think some people treat science like a religion in that they need one, or more ,of the sciences to explain every single weird or unnatural thing that happens in their life to them, otherwise it just does not exist.

 

[trainedobserver]

I think some people treat science like a religion in that they need one, or more ,of the sciences to explain every single weird or unnatural thing that happens in their life to them, otherwise it just does not exist.

It's statements just like that which cause me to think many people misunderstand science and the people who respect its methodologies and over superstition and mysticism.

Just out of curiosity what do you use? Magical thinking? Blind acceptance (aka faith)? Dousing? What?

 

[plumbbob12]

I was going to leave this thread alone, as one has to learn when to walk away, but I got to respond to the last comment to Pair of Cats'. Did someone mention Dowsing in the realm of "woo woo"???? Interesting take. This is just why we need open minds. Great peer reviewed paper on dowsing:
"The dowsing competence of an expert appointed by GTZ, Dipl.-Ing. Hans Schröter, was checked within a large scientific research program. A detailed final report of the investigation has been published [2]. It contains all practical procedures and results of the project, performed by a team of 14 scientists from 9 different institutions situated in and around Munich; the financing and control of the study was executed by the German Ministry for Research and Technology, along with another scientific group appointed by the Ministry. A series of rigorous tests showed that Schröter was, amongst some 50 tested persons, the most successful participant and his dowsing talent could be proven with a great statistical significance. 404 Not Found
Of course if one takes the time to read this paper, it does not "prove" dowsing, but does support the hypothesis that something unknown to physical science is going on. Just as with the electromagnetic phenomena, some day someone might be able to explain this phenomenon, but this is a good example of why we don't throw the "baby Jesus out with the bath water" cheers.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

It's statements just like that which cause me to think many people misunderstand science and the people who respect its methodologies and over superstition and mysticism.

Just out of curiosity what do you use? Magical thinking? Blind acceptance (aka faith)? Dousing? What?

I used common sense. I looked at the world around me and the stance that some people take on the matter. It's very easy to see and i'm amazed that someone like you who gives the impression of being some kind of know it all, overseer of all opinions regarding the sciences, doesn't see it.
Did you actually read any of my post? Or did you skip to a part where you could interject and project your own personal opinion of those who don't agree, implicitly, with you?
If you had read any of my post you would have seen that I welcome science and what it has to offer as long as it is being used for the betterment of society.
Unfortunately for you it is an inescapable fact that some and i stress, some people do use science like a religion as in "..if science can't explain it then it does not exist!" (for want of a better example). That type of thinking, to me, is based on the faith that science has all of the answers, which of course it does not. That is my opinion of some of the faith based ideology that i sometimes see around the sciences. I think that most people here are exempt from that.
So what if some people don't ascribe total respect for science and its methodologies. Who cares, Rick? Maybe only you. Should i respect the Japanese and German scientists who experimented on humans during WW2? Should i respect the methodologies of the scientists who explode umpteen amounts of Atomic bombs in the south pacific over many years? Should i accept that the scientists and the authorities who allowed Thalidomide be given to pregnant mothers in the 60s should be given respect for their work?
I think that most responders to this thread give respect to science for its achievements even if they don't have the same zeal for it as you and some others.
Yet you ascribe no respect to any one who has an opinion on esoteric subjects, such as the ones you mentioned. (And why you felt the need to interject them into this discussion is interesting to say the least!).
Maybe you have transferred your former zealotry for religion into a zealotry for debunking any opinion that you don't agree with.