5 ms·

> You employ a rhetorical move that some theists have used in the past -- namely, casting doubt on the veracity of scientific beliefs by painting them in the gu

> You employ a rhetorical move that some theists have used in the past -- namely, casting doubt on the veracity of scientific beliefs by painting them in the guise of religion. Are you not doing the same thing back to him ? If you disagree, then please tell me the definition of science.

mfoy_ 8y ago
"Science" is just a collection of tools and processes. "Scientisits" use those processes to attempt to arrive at true conclusions. This can be very difficult. Over time, "science" (the nebulous institution) can build up enough accrued "truths" that it can make interesting conclusions with a decent degree of confidence. (Note: scientific studies that are reported by clickbait headlines are not what I'm talking about.) The point is, that you can personally go learn how it all works, follow the studies, and attempt to replicate them, even, to arrive at the same conclusions. Or, if you find issues along the way, you can point them out and contribute to the corpus of "scientific knowledge" by removing an invalid "truth".
- blueprint 8y ago
  That's not the definition. There are many tools and processes that do not constitute science. If you want to define science as that which uncovers truth, then, for that to be true, you must be able to define truth without resorting to tautology (that is, there must be a way to verify 'truth'). Excluding a subset of what's false doesn't necessarily lead you to discovering or being able to accept (integrate) the truth.
  - fizx 8y ago
    Science is the belief that the laws of nature are consistent, and therefore repeatable and testable. From there the practice of science is repeating and testing claims about nature, and communicating these tests through various social processes such as peer reviewed journals or running through the streets naked shouting "Eureka!"
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Science is the belief that the laws of nature are consistent, and therefore repeatable and testable. No, science is the practice of using the assumption of consistent laws of nature to build predictive models. In a way, it is more an elaborate extended test of the utility of the assumption than a belief in it (though obviously belief may support the practice and observed utility of the resulting models may create or reinforce belief.) But belief in the assumption is neither necessary to nor sufficient for science.
  - mfoy_ 8y ago
    Red is a colour, but not all colours are red. That doesn't mean that red isn't a colour because there are colours that are not red.
  - njarboe 8y ago
    Truth is what lets you predict the future state of the world. The better the predictions, the closer you are to "the truth". Physicists are very careful to understand the uncertainties in what they know and only say its "true" and publish the results when those uncertainties 5 or 6 or 7 sigma. Their predictions work almost always but are limited to a very small slice of reality. Other sciences move farther from this ideal and are less likely to be stating "the truth".
  - vinceguidry 8y ago
    > That's not the definition. There are many tools and processes that do not constitute science. They didn't say that. They said science was a collection of tools and processes. Obviously tools and processes exist that aren't a part of that collection.
salmonfamine 8y ago
1) It’s hard to say “no” to this because it’s not clear what you mean. Do you mean to say that I’m painting religion in the guise of religion? 2) here are several definitions: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science
- blueprint 8y ago
  1. Him means the person you're replying to. Your argument is clearly to paint him in a religious light. You need something more substantial than "other theists say similar things". You need concrete proof to draw a conclusion. 2. The question is whether you can show that what the person you're replying to is arguing in favor of is not science. Pasting some definitions proves neither that you understand them nor that they apply.
  - mfoy_ 8y ago
    >You need concrete proof to draw a conclusion I think we found a point we can agree upon!
  - gjm11 8y ago
    The person salmonfamine was replying to already painted himself (or herself) in a religious light. I see no justification for characterizing salmonfamine's argument as "to paint him in a religious light" -- and since salmonfamine explicitly said "I am not an atheist or an agnostic", it seems you're arguing that one religious person is trying to stigmatize another by labelling them as religious. Not very likely.
Retric 8y ago
Science is a methodology for defining how the universe operates. It’s sole assumption is the univers has some form of order, and holds zero other beliefs. Seriously, people question if time exists or how many dimensions their are. Consensus is what allows medicine to operate and people to build computers etc, but it’s not accepted Truth.
- blueprint 8y ago
  That's not the definition. What is the methodology ?
  - Retric 8y ago
    It’s a recursive definition. Methodology that works is science, that which fails is not. Things like peer review are accepted practice, but practice changes over time based on research. People simplify things like to use hypothesis > experiment loop as Science. But, in practice simple observation is often used for things like Botany. Ex: Philosophy is not science becase it does not work. You can’t argue from first principles and end up with a modern CPU.
    - mitchty 8y ago
      > Philosophy is not science becase it does not work. I'm slightly amused by this statement, as modern science is descended directly from philosophy. Indeed without philosophy, I could easily argue there is no science as we know it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy
      - Retric 8y ago
        Language changes over time, you can’t use an outdated 18th century term to refer to the modern linguistic meaning of a term. Now days we call the useless bits philosophy, 200 years ago back when people took Phrenology as a real thing that was not true.

mfoy_ 8y ago

"Science" is just a collection of tools and processes. "Scientisits" use those processes to attempt to arrive at true conclusions. This can be very difficult. Over time, "science" (the nebulous institution) can build up enough accrued "truths" that it can make interesting conclusions with a decent degree of confidence. (Note: scientific studies that are reported by clickbait headlines are not what I'm talking about.) The point is, that you can personally go learn how it all works, follow the studies, and attempt to replicate them, even, to arrive at the same conclusions. Or, if you find issues along the way, you can point them out and contribute to the corpus of "scientific knowledge" by removing an invalid "truth".

blueprint 8y ago
That's not the definition. There are many tools and processes that do not constitute science. If you want to define science as that which uncovers truth, then, for that to be true, you must be able to define truth without resorting to tautology (that is, there must be a way to verify 'truth'). Excluding a subset of what's false doesn't necessarily lead you to discovering or being able to accept (integrate) the truth.
- fizx 8y ago
  Science is the belief that the laws of nature are consistent, and therefore repeatable and testable. From there the practice of science is repeating and testing claims about nature, and communicating these tests through various social processes such as peer reviewed journals or running through the streets naked shouting "Eureka!"
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Science is the belief that the laws of nature are consistent, and therefore repeatable and testable. No, science is the practice of using the assumption of consistent laws of nature to build predictive models. In a way, it is more an elaborate extended test of the utility of the assumption than a belief in it (though obviously belief may support the practice and observed utility of the resulting models may create or reinforce belief.) But belief in the assumption is neither necessary to nor sufficient for science.
- mfoy_ 8y ago
  Red is a colour, but not all colours are red. That doesn't mean that red isn't a colour because there are colours that are not red.
- njarboe 8y ago
  Truth is what lets you predict the future state of the world. The better the predictions, the closer you are to "the truth". Physicists are very careful to understand the uncertainties in what they know and only say its "true" and publish the results when those uncertainties 5 or 6 or 7 sigma. Their predictions work almost always but are limited to a very small slice of reality. Other sciences move farther from this ideal and are less likely to be stating "the truth".
- vinceguidry 8y ago
  > That's not the definition. There are many tools and processes that do not constitute science. They didn't say that. They said science was a collection of tools and processes. Obviously tools and processes exist that aren't a part of that collection.

salmonfamine 8y ago

1) It’s hard to say “no” to this because it’s not clear what you mean. Do you mean to say that I’m painting religion in the guise of religion? 2) here are several definitions: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

blueprint 8y ago
1. Him means the person you're replying to. Your argument is clearly to paint him in a religious light. You need something more substantial than "other theists say similar things". You need concrete proof to draw a conclusion. 2. The question is whether you can show that what the person you're replying to is arguing in favor of is not science. Pasting some definitions proves neither that you understand them nor that they apply.
- mfoy_ 8y ago
  >You need concrete proof to draw a conclusion I think we found a point we can agree upon!
- gjm11 8y ago
  The person salmonfamine was replying to already painted himself (or herself) in a religious light. I see no justification for characterizing salmonfamine's argument as "to paint him in a religious light" -- and since salmonfamine explicitly said "I am not an atheist or an agnostic", it seems you're arguing that one religious person is trying to stigmatize another by labelling them as religious. Not very likely.

Retric 8y ago

Science is a methodology for defining how the universe operates. It’s sole assumption is the univers has some form of order, and holds zero other beliefs. Seriously, people question if time exists or how many dimensions their are. Consensus is what allows medicine to operate and people to build computers etc, but it’s not accepted Truth.

blueprint 8y ago
That's not the definition. What is the methodology ?
- Retric 8y ago
  It’s a recursive definition. Methodology that works is science, that which fails is not. Things like peer review are accepted practice, but practice changes over time based on research. People simplify things like to use hypothesis > experiment loop as Science. But, in practice simple observation is often used for things like Botany. Ex: Philosophy is not science becase it does not work. You can’t argue from first principles and end up with a modern CPU.
  - mitchty 8y ago
    > Philosophy is not science becase it does not work. I'm slightly amused by this statement, as modern science is descended directly from philosophy. Indeed without philosophy, I could easily argue there is no science as we know it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy
    - Retric 8y ago
      Language changes over time, you can’t use an outdated 18th century term to refer to the modern linguistic meaning of a term. Now days we call the useless bits philosophy, 200 years ago back when people took Phrenology as a real thing that was not true.