[Prometheus The Supremo]

^It was the interpretation of reason and science that permitted the Nazis to commit the holocaust. Many of the Nazi doctors at concentration camps, including Mengele, and many higher ups in the SS had PhDs in medicine where they used an inductive approach to conclude that traits, such as jaw structure, between different 'races' of human beings were noticeably different and this led them to infer that Africans and Asians were genetically inferior. Their scientific "evidence", which was obviously clouded by prior values, led them to set up some of the most barbaric medical experiments we have ever performed.

The same thing applies to the Spanish Inquisition; it was not Catholocisim, per se, that caused the Inquisition. Rather, it was the interpretation of texts by subjective human beings with prior values and interests that set the wheels in motion. In this sense, your knife analogy doesn't quite hold, for it's not the knives that do the killing but people with irrational motives that use the knives as the tool. I am basically arguing the same for science and religion. Like knives, they are tools to be wielded by humans in whatever capacity they wish to use them.

if you're gonna blame science or attribute nazi horrors to science, you might as well attribute creation science to science. these people who "conclude that traits, such as jaw structure, between different 'races' of human beings were noticeably different and this led them to infer that Africans and Asians were genetically inferior" were not acting in the name of scientific inquiry but rather acting on their biases brought about by being raised in a culture which was influenced by a religion that taught that the jews were christ killers, deal makers with the devil & that blacks were cursed. like creation scientists, nazi scientists were twisting reality to suit their agenda. if you're gonna blame anything, blame pseudo-science. regarding the higher-ups having PhD's, there's lots of scientists who believe in crazy crap. that doesn't mean that a scientists personal belief has anything to do with science. i know alot of religious people who tell me "well newton believed in god", and this somehow validates belief in god for them, like belief in god is now somehow scientific because newton believed in god. what does that have to do with science? what if newton raped children, ate feces, killed old ladies & believed everyone in the western hemisphere was a servant of the devil and salvation can only be achieved through cutting off one's ears, would it make those things okay or true since a really smart guy did them or believed them? i wonder if these people would accept homosexuality and gay marriage if tomorrow we found out newton was gay. i wonder if they'd lose their faith if they found out tomorrow that newton was in reality a secret atheist?

science can be a tool, religion can be a tool but a specific religion can be a tool and both the motive. but i'm not saying the christ killing belief, etc. was the only thing that caused the holocaust. there's also the issue with germany's defeat in WWI and economic conditions. if you took away one of the three main contributing factors: belief, shame & poverty, IMO, things would have turned out way differently.

i'm still wondering where "true science" & not something that was made up to suit someone's agenda was the motivation (not the tool) for horrible acts?

 

[Hipster Duck]

Prometheus, I hope you can appreciate that there is no such thing as "true" or "pure" science. Since all science is practiced by fallible, irrational humans relying on the constructive scientific method through imprecise instruments and relying on the constraints of conceptual understandings of non-verifiable scientific theories and communicated through the semiotic constraints of language, there can never be any attainment of the "truth" through science (or likely through any means).

 

[wonderboy416]

First off, what is 'science'?

sci·ence
n.
1.
a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

Simply put, we are not rational and so therefore you cannot champion science as a tool for human use on grounds that it is rational.

You are saying that we are not capable of being rational? There for you agree with this statement: "All people are not capable of being rational at any time"
I choose to disagree.

The very fact that you are resorting to iimpassioned ad hominem attacks underscores Amos Tversky and Herbert Simon's belief that humans are fundamentally irrational beings.

Hence why I said in my opinion. One must be able to differentiate between an opinion or belief and a fact. There is perhaps no better example than the subject of Religion (faith/opinion) and evolution (factual). You are trying to blur the lines between the two stating that humans cannot truly obtain facts by any means because we are irrational beings subject to fallibility. I (and I'm sure many a psychologist and scientist) disagree with you.

That's pretty silly, I'll admit. I would be cautious of any one system having the answers, whether that is religion or science. Again, I refer to the fact that both are human constructs and that humans are non rational actors.

Science is an exploration of the natural world... Although the word and definition is a human construct, you're again implying that we're unable to correctly understand the world around us when we've been able to go to space, split the atom etc etc etc etc etc etc... I suppose it's a coincidence that these things work out and has nothing to do with the fact that we have correctly applied what science has taught us. What alternative explanation to say... how sound travels through the air do you offer up? Surely ours must be flawed right? Or we will never truly understand the reason? It's as if you're implying there's some divine interest in control of everything and that we're only fooling ourselves despite the mountains upon mountains of evidence that state otherwise.

How did you reach that conclusion? Did you apply logic and reasoning?

Yes, and past experiences. That's how some of us non-scientists function. I never claim to be correct 100% of the time, it's merely the impression I have obtained from you.

Prometheus, I hope you can appreciate that there is no such thing as "true" or "pure" science. Since all science is practiced by fallible, irrational humans relying on the constructive scientific method through imprecise instruments and relying on the constraints of conceptual understandings of non-verifiable scientific theories and communicated through the semiotic constraints of language, there can never be any attainment of the "truth" through science (or likely through any means).

You must be the most skeptical person alive. Trying to out think reality is surely a difficult task. Perhaps it is too great a task for man kind seeing how we have misunderstood our entire world around us to do our irrational nature right? Aren't your precious philosophers also subject to irrational thought and explanation thus rendering their observations just as fallible as anything science can ascertain right? So really we're all just a bunch of people who have no idea what we're talking about since we're incapable of it.

 

[Hipster Duck]

You must be the most skeptical person alive. Trying to out think reality is surely a difficult task. Perhaps it is too great a task for man kind seeing how we have misunderstood our entire world around us to do our irrational nature right? Aren't your precious philosophers also subject to irrational thought and explanation thus rendering their observations just as fallible as anything science can ascertain right? So really we're all just a bunch of people who have no idea what we're talking about since we're incapable of it.

No, we should just accept the inherent uncertainties and contradicitions of human existence.

Of course philosophers are just as capable of irrational thought and explanation; they're human, are they not? By the way, they're not my philosophers, so I don't see why they would be particularly precious to me.

They do, however, represent pretty much the dominant thought in science philosophy since the Second World war, so even if you think that science/reason is an objective, all-seeing tool for understanding the natural world, there are people who have spent more time than you have probably been alive thinking about this subject, sharply disagreeing with you, and winning Nobel Prizes for their analysis.

PS, quoting an online dictionary on the definition of science was a really slick move there, cowboy.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Science is an exploration of the natural world... Although the word and definition is a human construct, you're again implying that we're unable to correctly understand the world around us when we've been able to go to space, split the atom etc etc etc etc etc etc... I suppose it's a coincidence that these things work out and has nothing to do with the fact that we have correctly applied what science has taught us. What alternative explanation to say... how sound travels through the air do you offer up? Surely ours must be flawed right?

Oh, and PPS, prediction, achievement and even reproducibility are not guarantees that we know the truth behind how a phenomenon actually occurs. The Babylonians were able to predict lunar cycles and tide levels with some bizarre and fuzzy form of inference that can hardly be called science. You might be bowled over by this, but one of the first uses of empiricism ever was by the Arab scholar Ibn Tufail in the 12th century...to "prove" the existence of a divine creator. How about that? A scientific approach to induction was first used by theists to prove the existence of a god. Not to throw your words back in your face, but now you know where your "precious" reason has its origins.

I don't know you personally, wonderboy - and I hope you don't mind me saying this to you - but I think it is incredibly naive to believe that science provides the final and most perfect answer to uncovering the riddles of the universe. We have only been using the scientific method for 500 years and it would be possible that there is another, more advanced method to understanding the natural world. We could be like those Babylonians who were so sure of their methods, because it worked, but how?

 

[MisterF]

Your attempt to put science on the same plain as religion is probably your way of letting us know you deem creationism to be just as likely as an entirely natural beginning.

I get the feeling that his problems with anthropegenic climate change has more to do with it - his disagreement with the scientific view on that subject has destroyed the credibiilty of all fields of science in his view. This debate is fascinating and bizarre.

Something much more value-laden, like climate change science, is likely to be more nebulous because of dispute and a volley of scientific evidence that appear on both sides of the debate. Do you see the connection?

There's nothing inherently value-laden about climate change science, not any more than disease research or astronomy. The volleys of evidence appear on only one side of climate change debate, by the way. Unless of course you're talking about "evidence" that's not published or peer-reviewed.

We once thought the earth was flat and the centre of the universe, then science came along and proved that to be rubbish.

Centre of the universe yes, flat no. It's been known that the earth is round for thousands of years, even in the middle ages.

 

[wonderboy416]

Of course philosophers are just as capable of irrational thought and explanation; they're human, are they not? By the way, they're not my philosophers, so I don't see why they would be particularly precious to me.

Well you seem to hold them in a much higher light than you do scientists...

They do, however, represent pretty much the dominant thought in science philosophy since the Second World war, so even if you think that science/reason is an objective, all-seeing tool for understanding, have the natural world, there are people who have spent more time than you have probably been alive thinking about this subject, sharply disagreeing with you, and winning Nobel Prizes for their analysis.

And there are scientists who know far more about the natural world, have spent more years thinking AND working about their subjects than you have been alive and winning a mountain of nobel prizes compared (more so than philosophy I would presume). What's your point exactly? I'm inferior to a philosopher? I don't discredit philosophy, you just seem to hold it very dear to your heart and have so little faith in the scientific process that has helped provide you pretty much everything you have in this world...

PS, quoting an online dictionary on the definition of science was a really slick move there, cowboy.

It's less valid because it's online? I guess it must be in print first?
I didn't know that, I'll cancel my internet subscription at once because like science, the internet can't possibly have any of the right answers...

You might be bowled over by this, but one of the first uses of empiricism ever was by the Arab scholar Ibn Tufail in the 12th century...to "prove" the existence of a divine creator. How about that? A scientific approach to induction was first used by theists to prove the existence of a god. Not to throw your words back in your face, but now you know where your "precious" reason has its origins.

As I mentioned, 93% of scientists that have ever lived are alive right now. The scientific-method which has worked so remarkably well wasn't in practice during the 12th century. This is not relevant, that's like saying the first instance of chemistry was alchemy...

I don't know you personally, wonderboy - and I hope you don't mind me saying this to you - but I think it is incredibly naive to believe that science provides the final and most perfect answer to uncovering the riddles of the universe. We have only been using the scientific method for 500 years and it would be possible that there is another, more advanced method to understanding the natural world. We could be like those Babylonians who were so sure of their methods, because it worked, but how?

Maybe there's a better method, I already mentioned that in my prior post. I never claimed science to to provide the final and most perfect answer to anything.
In fact science is completely open to scrutiny and revision in light of new evidence. That's where it differs from religion. This is something you don't seem to acknowledge.

 

[Hipster Duck]

I get the feeling that his problems with anthropegenic climate change has more to do with it - his disagreement with the scientific view on that subject has destroyed the credibiilty of all fields of science in his view. This debate is fascinating and bizarre.

BTW, what's with labeling me as a) religious, and, b) a denier of climate change?

wrt a), if you follow my line of thought in this thread you'll quickly discover that I don't necessarily believe in a divine creator, either. I also acknowledged that god was a human construct, so there probably isn't one around. That doesn't mean that there absolutely, 100% is not one, either. If there is anything I believe in, it's that no one system has all the answers and that there is a lot of inherent uncertainty in our attempts to understand the natural world.

wrt b), I mention that the climate change debate is heavily value laden which you have somehow implied means that I think only one side - the advocates - are guilty of. Of course, climate change skeptics also introduce their values into the science they use to legitimize their position.

Values manifest themselves when people have a lot riding on the line. For the IPCC, twenty years of credibility and a very lucrative funding arrangement with scientific granting bodies would be 'on the line', so to speak, so there's a need to keep scientific studies focused on 'proving' the existence of climate change through whatever means. On the other side, climate change skeptics have their own interests and they're a lot more transparent: many have ties to the energy sector and the funding found therein or are politically motivated to engage in this kind of 'research'.

I'm not a skeptic of climate change, nor do I think it will play out according to the evidence laid out by the IPCC. My own personal feelings as a pragmatist is that we should act and adapt in anticipation of the threat of climate change, regardless of what side presents better evidence.

 

[jade_lee]

Science learns as much from mistakes as it does from it's incredible finds, unfortunately religion rarely admits to mistakes. It's a mistake to not include women in leadership roles in most religions but.......

The world was created in 6 days...lol.

 

[MisterF]

BTW, what's with labeling me as a) religious, and, b) a denier of climate change?

wrt a), if you follow my line of thought in this thread you'll quickly discover that I don't necessarily believe in a divine creator, either. I also acknowledged that god was a human construct, so there probably isn't one around. That doesn't mean that there absolutely, 100% is not one, either. If there is anything I believe in, it's that no one system has all the answers and that there is a lot of inherent uncertainty in our attempts to understand the natural world.

wrt b), I mention that the climate change debate is heavily value laden which you have somehow implied means that I think only one side - the advocates - are guilty of. Of course, climate change skeptics also introduce their values into the science they use to legitimize their position.

Values manifest themselves when people have a lot riding on the line. For the IPCC, twenty years of credibility and a very lucrative funding arrangement with scientific granting bodies would be 'on the line', so to speak, so there's a need to keep scientific studies focused on 'proving' the existence of climate change through whatever means. On the other side, climate change skeptics have their own interests and they're a lot more transparent: many have ties to the energy sector and the funding found therein or are politically motivated to engage in this kind of 'research'.

I'm not a skeptic of climate change, nor do I think it will play out according to the evidence laid out by the IPCC. My own personal feelings as a pragmatist is that we should act and adapt in anticipation of the threat of climate change, regardless of what side presents better evidence.

a) I don't know why you think I'm labeling you as religious, I didn't even imply it. Religious beliefs have no bearing on my piont.
b) I also didn't imply that you think only one side is guilty of being value laden. BTW, within the community of people doing the research on climate change, there are no sides.

As for your implications of a worldwide conspiracy to prove global warming led by the IPCC, where do I even start? Time to take off the tinfoil hat, Hipster. Scientific inquiry has proven itself wrong countless times; climate research is no different.

 

[gristle]

... but I think it is incredibly naive to believe that science provides the final and most perfect answer to uncovering the riddles of the universe. We have only been using the scientific method for 500 years and it would be possible that there is another, more advanced method to understanding the natural world. We could be like those Babylonians who were so sure of their methods, because it worked, but how?

What is particularly impressive - and often missed - is the notion that science is incomplete. Not only is all knowledge tentative, it is limited by our own physical constraints - human and instrument.

Hipster, while agreeing with you, I would go one step further and suggest that the "scientific method" is a product of 500 years of inquiry - and it has hardly been practiced in any "pure" form over that time. It is troubling when people opt to use the word "truth" when they mean "verifiable." The latter means that science is open to change and should never be viewed as an absolute statement of irrefutable fact. The former turns science into a religion.

The fact that the 500 years of scientific history is a story of change - in terms of knowledge, process and approach - is itself indicative that science (knowledge) is constantly evolving and open to change. Race and gender stereotyping have been supported and practiced by scientists in the past. To say that the people who did so were wrong does not mean that they were not trying to be scientific in their approach. Many were. However, the research did not prove any "truths." The tentative nature of the results allowed holes to be gradually blown into such ideas. It would have been truly sad if someone had then gone on to proclaim that the science was complete and the debate was over.

I would also agree that the climate-change debate is quite value-laden. So much of it is now a political debate, and regardless of what "side" one might be on politically, the politics is doing an immense amount of damage to generating a more clear understanding of the extremely complex global climate system. Politics is affecting what kind of research can be done, what gets funded and what can get published. That is a shame - given the fact that so much government policy is supposed to be built on this research.

Absolute answers can never be derived from an incomplete understanding. It should be clear that such a stance has equal effect on both science and religion, particularly when it comes to announcing which has access to some form of complete or absolute "truth."

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Prometheus, I hope you can appreciate that there is no such thing as "true" or "pure" science. Since all science is practiced by fallible, irrational humans relying on the constructive scientific method through imprecise instruments and relying on the constraints of conceptual understandings of non-verifiable scientific theories and communicated through the semiotic constraints of language, there can never be any attainment of the "truth" through science (or likely through any means).

you missed the point. i was talking about the true scientific method, not "truth" obtained by it. creation science is not science, scientific racism is not science. people who practice such pseudo-sciences do not adhere to the scientific method. they go into their investigations with heavy bias with no openness to all possibilities. while i generally agree that the "truth" may not be known (all of existence may just be an illusion like total recall or something), the scientific method is the best thing we got in terms of getting close to truth in the reality we or i currently exist in (solipsism could be true but i doubt it because nothing suggests it).

also, for the sake of argument, lets say different "races" have different jaw structures and for some reason i would never understand, such features dictate intelligence levels. (we're just pretending that scientific racism was true) why would this be reason to treat someone worse or deny them rights? how would this prove how to treat someone? it doesn't make any sense. it only makes sense to people who are bias and looking for any made up argument that sounds good because it came for an authority figure, someone who talks well or went to a good school.

and another thing, how can you say "there can never be any attainment of the "truth" through science (or likely through any means)." ? doesn't that line of though contradict its self? you say that statement with such certainty, like you hold it to be truth. how do you know?

lets say that the scientific method can't obtain 100% pure truth. how close does just making stuff up come to that 100%? which is more accurate usually, a measurement? or a guess? an imagination or observation?

 

[Hipster Duck]

prometheus, the thing is that the nazi scientists - despite being pseudo-scientists - were considered to be valid scientists of their time. They did, after all, go to schools that taught empirical methods and applied them to the study of natural phenomena based on the evidence they acquired. I'm not saying that today's scientists will be responsible for anything nearly so horrific, but perhaps in 60 years the science that we practice today will be dismissed as bunk by future scientists? The processes of science do update themselves, and I acknowledge that, most of my attacks were generally aimed squarely at wonderboy who is under the impression that the method revelas an objective truth. Gristle makes a very good point when he says that that essentially renders science a religion, so wonderboy is essentially a "religious" man - in the true sense (pun) of the word - arguing against another kind of (formal) religion.

On second thought, religion navigates away from being totally static, too. Religions periodically update their "rules" (although much slower than science does) and there is always the option to break away and found a new religion if you're unhappy with what you have. Or you can just not be religious. Science is a little less flexible in certain regards: I could have made a great discovery with enormous implications that is not backed by any empirical evidence/research. This, however, would not be publishable in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and would not be taken with any credibility.

and another thing, how can you say "there can never be any attainment of the "truth" through science (or likely through any means)." ? doesn't that line of though contradict its self? you say that statement with such certainty, like you hold it to be truth. how do you know?

Ha ha. That's the great philosophical/epistemological paradox: if nothing is certain, than uncertainty is a certainty. You have to live with these things; such is the nature of our awesome universe.

lets say that the scientific method can't obtain 100% pure truth. how close does just making stuff up come to that 100%? which is more accurate usually, a measurement? or a guess? an imagination or observation?

That's an impossible question to answer. How can I quantify how close I will get to something I don't even know I'll be able to attain? It's like asking what percentage 1 million is of infinity.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

prometheus, the thing is that the nazi scientists - despite being pseudo-scientists - were considered to be valid scientists of their time. They did, after all, go to schools that taught empirical methods and applied them to the study of natural phenomena based on the evidence they acquired.

wouldn't that be guilt by association though? they may have been valid scientists but they weren't practising the scientific method in regards to scientific racism. if a bank teller robs a bank and convinces alot of folk that this is banking procedure, do we attribute the robbery to bank tellering? robing a bank is not practising normal teller duties.

Ha ha. That's the great philosophical/epistemological paradox: if nothing is certain, than uncertainty is a certainty. You have to live with these things; such is the nature of our awesome universe.

but how are you certain that uncertainty is a certainty?

That's an impossible question to answer. How can I quantify how close I will get to something I don't even know I'll be able to attain? It's like asking what percentage 1 million is of infinity.

there is a room, you are at the door and can't see inside of it. you either guess what's inside or you open the door with your hand and you try to discover what's inside. you go inside, your senses may be lying to you, it can all be a dream, an illusion your tools may be inaccurate, etc. but at least you can get a rough understanding of the reality which is the room you are currently standing in. others repeat your observations and tests and get the same results. it is a common reality. it could be all fake but nothing suggests it. until something suggests it, you're living in it and it's probably best to accept it.

 

[gristle]

you go inside, your senses may be lying to you, it can all be a dream, an illusion your tools may be inaccurate, etc. but at least you can get a rough understanding of the reality which is the room you are currently standing in. others repeat your observations and tests and get the same results. it is a common reality.

This would be a case of common perception.

To assume that you are perceiving some form of absolute "reality" based on your sense perceptions alone is going a little far. Before making such a claim, you might first want to first provide an exact definition of "reality." You may find it to be a rather difficult concept to define.