5 ms·

If you are religious, then you either think that religion is a valid alternative to science for certain problems, or that testable predictions are not important

If you are religious, then you either think that religion is a valid alternative to science for certain problems, or that testable predictions are not important in some domains. Which is to say, either you think that scientific reasoning isn't always a good way to understand our world, or you don't think understanding how our world works is really so important. All else being equal, good scientists will possess neither of these qualities.

sp332 11y ago
Science only has bearing on testable, repeatable hypotheses. History, for example, isn't science even though it tries to deal in objective truth. "Testable predictions" aren't everything.
- deciplex 11y ago
  To the extent that history is the organization and interpretation of known past events, no it is not science. But, neither does it need to be, since it is not factual discovery - it is not dealing in objective truth, rather cataloging known truths. However, the part of historical study that concerns itself with gaining knowledge about the past is absolutely science, and it can and should make testable predictions. If you read historical accounts of Mongolian invasions of Eastern Europe, you might expect and predict that Eastern Europeans would have a genetic heritage that is partially shared with present-day Mongolian people - and indeed that turns out to be the case. If they didn't, we would have reason to believe the historical accounts are exaggerated or even false. In other words, "history" might not be science depending on your definition, but anthropology certainly is. Any statement you make about reality, or a model for reality, should have a consequence in anticipated experiences. If it doesn't, you haven't gained any knowledge.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> If you are religious, then you either think that religion is a valid alternative to science for certain problems, or that testable predictions are not important in some domains. Testable predictions aren't even applicable in some domains. (e.g., fundamental moral principles.) Science can tell you whether certain actions fulfill a given set of moral principles, but it only answers "is" questions, and not fundamental "ought" questions. (It can sometimes answer derivative "ought" questions once you use some other means to select the answers to fundamental "ought" questions.) > Which is to say, either you think that scientific reasoning isn't always a good way to understand our world, or you don't think understanding how our world works is really so important. Or, you think that there are things worth considering besides the mechanics of how our world works. Certainly, some take the view that this is the only class of thing worth considering but this view is, itself, a quasi-religious and not-scientific view (and, as it is not a view about how the world works, somewhat self-inconsistent to hold in any case.)
- deciplex 11y ago
  I guess I wasn't clear enough, but considering the topic of this thread, when I wrote "certain problems" I was referring to statements about the natural world. That is, the sort of stuff you would talk about at any scientific conference. You are correct that "ought" questions are not scientific in nature, but that's because they are not statements about the natural world. Moral principles will be rooted in your biology and your culture, and if your culture includes religion that will be reflected in your beliefs, but that certainly doesn't validate your religion. Of course, how your religion came to have those values in the first place is in the domain of science (anthropology).
  - murbard2 11y ago
    Yes, and by the same account, a good scientist shouldn't be a moral realist.

sp332 11y ago

Science only has bearing on testable, repeatable hypotheses. History, for example, isn't science even though it tries to deal in objective truth. "Testable predictions" aren't everything.

deciplex 11y ago
To the extent that history is the organization and interpretation of known past events, no it is not science. But, neither does it need to be, since it is not factual discovery - it is not dealing in objective truth, rather cataloging known truths. However, the part of historical study that concerns itself with gaining knowledge about the past is absolutely science, and it can and should make testable predictions. If you read historical accounts of Mongolian invasions of Eastern Europe, you might expect and predict that Eastern Europeans would have a genetic heritage that is partially shared with present-day Mongolian people - and indeed that turns out to be the case. If they didn't, we would have reason to believe the historical accounts are exaggerated or even false. In other words, "history" might not be science depending on your definition, but anthropology certainly is. Any statement you make about reality, or a model for reality, should have a consequence in anticipated experiences. If it doesn't, you haven't gained any knowledge.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> If you are religious, then you either think that religion is a valid alternative to science for certain problems, or that testable predictions are not important in some domains. Testable predictions aren't even applicable in some domains. (e.g., fundamental moral principles.) Science can tell you whether certain actions fulfill a given set of moral principles, but it only answers "is" questions, and not fundamental "ought" questions. (It can sometimes answer derivative "ought" questions once you use some other means to select the answers to fundamental "ought" questions.) > Which is to say, either you think that scientific reasoning isn't always a good way to understand our world, or you don't think understanding how our world works is really so important. Or, you think that there are things worth considering besides the mechanics of how our world works. Certainly, some take the view that this is the only class of thing worth considering but this view is, itself, a quasi-religious and not-scientific view (and, as it is not a view about how the world works, somewhat self-inconsistent to hold in any case.)

deciplex 11y ago
I guess I wasn't clear enough, but considering the topic of this thread, when I wrote "certain problems" I was referring to statements about the natural world. That is, the sort of stuff you would talk about at any scientific conference. You are correct that "ought" questions are not scientific in nature, but that's because they are not statements about the natural world. Moral principles will be rooted in your biology and your culture, and if your culture includes religion that will be reflected in your beliefs, but that certainly doesn't validate your religion. Of course, how your religion came to have those values in the first place is in the domain of science (anthropology).
- murbard2 11y ago
  Yes, and by the same account, a good scientist shouldn't be a moral realist.