5 ms·

The article is written in a convoluted way, but the main points it makes are valid in my opinion. The first being that science alone can never legitimate itself

by xgb84j 5y ago

The article is written in a convoluted way, but the main points it makes are valid in my opinion. The first being that science alone can never legitimate itself as being the only true way of doing something. This legitimization must come from somewhere else like philosophy and can never be part of science itself. The second point is that there is will always be a gap between science, reality, human understanding and application of science. Even the scientific process itself involves subjective decisions not derivable from science, e.g. what hypotheses to test. I think the author wants to convey that doing everything "the rational way" is not objectively superior than doing everything according to some other set of principles.

lostmsu 5y ago
> science alone can never legitimate itself What does this even mean?
me_me_me 5y ago
> science alone can never legitimate itself Nether anything else, religion is based on faith and dogma. It can never be legitimised by facts as it will not be based on faith anymore. So what's the point of your statement then? > scientific process itself involves subjective decisions Yes, you can use imagination, try/fail approaches but those are then put to the test. And if my magical stone that keeps away tigers was found not to work, then its just a stone. Thats where the non-tangible and mistic claims come to die, or live (ie placebo effect, we don't understand it yet, but we know it exists). > I think the author wants to convey that doing everything "the rational way" is not objectively superior than doing everything according to some other set of principles. In my opinion the author desperately flails their arms in an attempt to obscure the murky argument. And it feels like convoluted god of gaps argument without mentioning god.
- xgb84j 5y ago
  > > science alone can never legitimate itself > Nether anything else, religion is based on faith and dogma. It can never be legitimised by facts as it will not be based on faith anymore. > So what's the point of your statement then? That the author of the article uses this argument to show that science alone is not enough. In comparison, like you mentioned, religion can legitimize itself through dogma. Science needs another system that promotes values and goals that can be achieved through science. > > scientific process itself involves subjective decisions > Yes, you can use imagination, try/fail approaches but those are then put to the test. And if my magical stone that keeps away tigers was found not to work, then its just a stone. Thats where the non-tangible and mistic claims come to die, or live (ie placebo effect, we don't understand it yet, but we know it exists). I completely agree with you on this. Given enough time you get more and more knowledge. The interesting cases in my opinion are where there is conflicting evidence from different studies or sources and maybe not enough time to do further studies. For example you have stomach cancer due to a genetic defect. Your doctor recommends you a medication which works for stomach cancer, but it has strong side effects. In all available studies there was no distinction made between patients with that defect and without. You reduce your survival chances if you take the medication and it doesn't work, but you also reduce your chances when you don't take it and it does work. So whats the rational thing to do? > In my opinion the author desperately flails their arms in an attempt to obscure the murky argument. And it feels like convoluted god of gaps argument without mentioning god. The author does not present a very coherent argument, but I still think he makes some good points.
smackeyacky 5y ago
But science is objectively better than any alternative we have found so far.
- xgb84j 5y ago
  Science works very well for things like not getting sick, understanding physical phenomena or getting to the moon. But for some goals like being happy, finding meaning in life or cooking a tasty meal science is only of limited use. Also I don't think the author necessarily proposes to replace science, but rather being aware of the limits of science. There is no one scientific or rational way of coming up with scientific hypotheses or determining how to apply scientific discoveries best to the real world. There is always a gap between the ideal world of science and reality.
  - taylodl 5y ago
    You appear to believe science can't be used to analyze subjective experiences such as happiness or a tasty meal? Consider this - science explains why cilantro tastes like soap to some people. A genetic test could determine if you're going to experience cilantro tasting like soap and therefore not like it. We're just starting to scratch the surface. We may very well be able to do a genetic test and accurately predict/prescribe your favorite meal. I imagine we'll make a lot of progress in this area over the next 100 years.
    - xgb84j 5y ago
      Science can be used to analyze subjective experiences, but analyzing something and being the one and only all-knowing oracle is a big difference. Science is always constrained to an ideal world, but reality is messy. There is no one correct way to pull out a piece of egg shell that got into the pan by mistake while cooking. Also I believe predicting things like favorite meals is possible to a high degree of certainty, but there is always a gap between the nice theoretical world and the real world. Maybe it's your favorite meal because your grandmother always cooked it for you. How do you define a meal? How much egg can you add or remove before it becomes a different meal? If my arguments seem too hand wavy, consider the incompleteness theorem. There are truths in mathematics that cannot be shown to be true. Why should messy real life give you stronger guarantees than the clean world of mathematics? Why should there always be one correct way of doing things that we can deduce? Or let's say I bet that a certain Turing machine doesn't halt. What does science say about this? Is this rational? Should I have bet that it does halt? Science is one of the best tools available, but it will not solve all of humanity's problems.

by xgb84j 5y ago

lostmsu 5y ago

> science alone can never legitimate itself What does this even mean?

me_me_me 5y ago

> science alone can never legitimate itself Nether anything else, religion is based on faith and dogma. It can never be legitimised by facts as it will not be based on faith anymore. So what's the point of your statement then? > scientific process itself involves subjective decisions Yes, you can use imagination, try/fail approaches but those are then put to the test. And if my magical stone that keeps away tigers was found not to work, then its just a stone. Thats where the non-tangible and mistic claims come to die, or live (ie placebo effect, we don't understand it yet, but we know it exists). > I think the author wants to convey that doing everything "the rational way" is not objectively superior than doing everything according to some other set of principles. In my opinion the author desperately flails their arms in an attempt to obscure the murky argument. And it feels like convoluted god of gaps argument without mentioning god.

xgb84j 5y ago
> > science alone can never legitimate itself > Nether anything else, religion is based on faith and dogma. It can never be legitimised by facts as it will not be based on faith anymore. > So what's the point of your statement then? That the author of the article uses this argument to show that science alone is not enough. In comparison, like you mentioned, religion can legitimize itself through dogma. Science needs another system that promotes values and goals that can be achieved through science. > > scientific process itself involves subjective decisions > Yes, you can use imagination, try/fail approaches but those are then put to the test. And if my magical stone that keeps away tigers was found not to work, then its just a stone. Thats where the non-tangible and mistic claims come to die, or live (ie placebo effect, we don't understand it yet, but we know it exists). I completely agree with you on this. Given enough time you get more and more knowledge. The interesting cases in my opinion are where there is conflicting evidence from different studies or sources and maybe not enough time to do further studies. For example you have stomach cancer due to a genetic defect. Your doctor recommends you a medication which works for stomach cancer, but it has strong side effects. In all available studies there was no distinction made between patients with that defect and without. You reduce your survival chances if you take the medication and it doesn't work, but you also reduce your chances when you don't take it and it does work. So whats the rational thing to do? > In my opinion the author desperately flails their arms in an attempt to obscure the murky argument. And it feels like convoluted god of gaps argument without mentioning god. The author does not present a very coherent argument, but I still think he makes some good points.

smackeyacky 5y ago

But science is objectively better than any alternative we have found so far.

xgb84j 5y ago
Science works very well for things like not getting sick, understanding physical phenomena or getting to the moon. But for some goals like being happy, finding meaning in life or cooking a tasty meal science is only of limited use. Also I don't think the author necessarily proposes to replace science, but rather being aware of the limits of science. There is no one scientific or rational way of coming up with scientific hypotheses or determining how to apply scientific discoveries best to the real world. There is always a gap between the ideal world of science and reality.
- taylodl 5y ago
  You appear to believe science can't be used to analyze subjective experiences such as happiness or a tasty meal? Consider this - science explains why cilantro tastes like soap to some people. A genetic test could determine if you're going to experience cilantro tasting like soap and therefore not like it. We're just starting to scratch the surface. We may very well be able to do a genetic test and accurately predict/prescribe your favorite meal. I imagine we'll make a lot of progress in this area over the next 100 years.
  - xgb84j 5y ago
    Science can be used to analyze subjective experiences, but analyzing something and being the one and only all-knowing oracle is a big difference. Science is always constrained to an ideal world, but reality is messy. There is no one correct way to pull out a piece of egg shell that got into the pan by mistake while cooking. Also I believe predicting things like favorite meals is possible to a high degree of certainty, but there is always a gap between the nice theoretical world and the real world. Maybe it's your favorite meal because your grandmother always cooked it for you. How do you define a meal? How much egg can you add or remove before it becomes a different meal? If my arguments seem too hand wavy, consider the incompleteness theorem. There are truths in mathematics that cannot be shown to be true. Why should messy real life give you stronger guarantees than the clean world of mathematics? Why should there always be one correct way of doing things that we can deduce? Or let's say I bet that a certain Turing machine doesn't halt. What does science say about this? Is this rational? Should I have bet that it does halt? Science is one of the best tools available, but it will not solve all of humanity's problems.