3 ms·
> Science is merely a set of tools and processes, nothing more. Seriously, NOTHING more. Nonsense - that ignores that fundamentally science is a human activity
by JackFr 8y ago
> Science is merely a set of tools and processes, nothing more. Seriously, NOTHING more.
Nonsense - that ignores that fundamentally science is a human activity. Because it is a human activity it is open to the same biases, self-deceptions, fads, groupthink and political pressures as any other human activity.
Apart from that, implicit in your defense of science and attack on religion is a belief that true knowledge can only be attained through the scientific method, and nothing which is true can be acquired outside of experiment and observation, which itself is a faith based (though pragmatic) argument.
That being said, I make no claims for the existence of a God, Abrahamic or otherwise. At the same time you could be a little more circumspect and humble about what you know to be true.
- srean 8y agoThe key phrase is 'falsifiable in principle' this God business (and it is indeed a business, if not all of it) is not. One can have all ones faith in flying spaghetti monster as one cares to have but there is no way even in principle to falsify it if it turns out that it is false.
- memonkey 8y agoIf anybody is curious about the work of Science being a fundamentally human activity, check out Bruno Latour. I'm sure there are others, but this is one I've recently discovered. NYTimes did a good article on him: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/magazine/bruno-latour-post-truth-philosopher-science.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/magazine/bruno-latour-pos...
- mfoy_ 8y agoI'm not saying humans are infallible, but trying to argue that "the scientific method isn't perfect because people aren't perfect" is nonsense, especially if the conclusion you want to draw is that "therefore we should respect faith as an alternative means of determining truth". The scientific method IS the best tool our species has when it comes to determining truths about the laws of nature. In fact, it's practically the only tool we have. Almost every major advancement our species has made has been because someone had a theory, figured out a way to test it, and came to a conclusion with some degree of confidence that they were then able to act upon and share with others. Since this is a thread about philosophy, "truth" (and how one determines it) is extremely relevant. Epistemology is a whole branch of philosophy. If you're truly skeptical, one could even argue that true knowledge cannot be attained at all, and all we can hope to do is arrive at conclusions with as high a degree of confidence as possible. My point is that science offers a way to increase confidence in a conclusion, religion does not. It's as simple as that.
- JackFr 8y ago> The scientific method IS the best tool our species has when it comes to determining truths about the laws of nature. I agree. But I also believe freedom is better than slavery. I value wisdom over ignorance. And I believe those things without any proof. The scientific method cannot prove to me that murder is wrong, and yet I hold it to be true. So despite the fact that I agree with the power of the scientific method, I'll cop to truths that I believe without proof.
- mopierotti 8y agoProof is a hard goalpost in any domain, but science, and by extension the scientific method, can support the belief that murder is wrong through a couple plausible paths. The study of evolution gives a mechanism through which a sense of morality is 'hardwired' into us for its adaptive benefits. Or, less teleologically, the study of our own brains can provide evidence for us as humans just not liking certain things. Additionally, a technique like group simulation could show that allowing murder is against the average individual's interest. I'm not claiming I come to my beliefs through deliberate scientific reasoning, but I do think that science has important things to say about most things.