5 ms·

> I'd ask you to check your basic assumption about science as an authority. Science is the only and ultimate final authority. It really is not a bad assumption

by tinco 5y ago

> I'd ask you to check your basic assumption about science as an authority. Science is the only and ultimate final authority. It really is not a bad assumption. There literally can not be a higher authority than it by definition. > but is really bad at transmitting information about non-deterministic processes or even processes that are so complex that they appear non-deterministic e.g. human behavior. No it is not, science functions perfectly fine for complex processes. We can describe and draw actionable conclusions from the behaviours of fluids and gases even though they are made up of inconceivably complex interactions of billions of quantum effects. We could easily model most of human behaviour if we really wanted to. It is just that it is unethical to do so, so we refrain from it. We make do with observing humans in the wild, and the observations we make sometimes have enough significance to make weak statements about human behaviours. If the belief in reincarnation could be used as a moral tool to help people think long term, that should be scientifically demonstrable if it's true. It would be a hard ethical argument though, as you're basically trading a persons ability to make correct judgements of their own safety and well-being for a larger "long term" better functioning society. Not saying it's definitely wrong, but it better lead to a much better world for it to be worth it.

CTmystery 5y ago
> Science is the only and ultimate final authority Junk science led to the American eugenics movement that included forced sterilization of 64k Americans in the early 1900s. I love science, but calling it the only and ultimate authoritity leaves a lot of room to create a world we don't want to live in. This happens because scientists disagree themselves on almost everything. Recognizing the difference in science as an ideal versus science put in practice makes me not want to agree with your statement.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Utilizing data to continuous refine one's model of the world is the ultimate final authority. Some people call it science, some call it the scientific method, etc.
  - CTmystery 5y ago
    Sure, it's a great method for understanding causal relationships in the world. It's also a method that humans invented, and it's not proven that some future invented method could not provide as much insight into the world as the scientific method. Calling it the ultimate authority and saying that "here literally can not be a higher authority than it by definition" is hard to defend IMO. Science gets its authority from consensus, right now we all agree that science should be granted authority! But it is clearly lacking as an all encompassing tool for understanding: How does the scientific method teach morality? It's not clear that it even can.
  - mistermann 5y ago
    And some other people call it delusion, hubris, flawed epistemology, ironic, etc.
- tinco 5y ago
  That it's the ultimate authority doesn't mean you should always believe it. It's just the best we've got. It's the best thing about science is that it's explicit about the bounds of what we know and don't know. You don't ask a scientist what you should do, you ask a scientist what they think is true, and what the options are and what their estimated outcomes are. It's always you yourself who make the decision. Regardless if there was junk science in the early 1900s (don't know much about it but wouldn't be surprised), it was people who decided to sterilize people. Just as it's people who decide to kill people for Jesus Christ or Allah or whatever excuse they come up with. Even if the science were true, and some subset of Americans is less intelligent or more violent or whatever, it still wouldn't change the fact that now we've decided that eugenics is unethical. We embrace diversity because that's what aligns to our values. Maybe if we're in the middle of famine and war our values will shift again. The authority of science has nothing to do with it.
  - CTmystery 5y ago
    Perhaps we disagree on the definition of 'the authority of science'. Also FWIW I am not at all religious, in case you think I'm trying to restore scripture to it's rightful place of authority over science. I am just intrigued by this statement that science is the ultimate authority by definition, and that nothing could ever supplant it.
    - tinco 5y ago
      So science as I view/understand it, is the effort to extract knowledge from the observable universe through experiments, observations and logic. If I compare science to religion, this is where I see the difference: In the church you have the clergy, who preach their understanding of the religion, and you have the basis of the religion, usually a book. To the religious the book or some idea from the book is the foundation, and the clergy are the guides. Similarly in science you have the scientists who do the actual science, and the foundation is observations of the universe. The faith I have and my dogma, is in believing the scientists, that is the part where I can have doubt and where I might be corrected in my beliefs, and the foundation is the actual universe which as far as I have been able to tell is consistent with itself so far. It's a bit of a cop out, because any time someone says "oh but these scientists were wrong", then I will go "ok yeah but those were junk science" and move on with my merry life.
padobson 5y ago
Science is the only and ultimate final authority. Indeed, praise be to science. It really is not a bad assumption. More like a leap of faith. There literally can not be a higher authority than it by definition. How [onto]logical. It is just that it is unethical to do so, so we refrain from it. Amen, brother. We've got to repress those urges of curiosity to appease glorious science. Praise be to science! Amen.
- tinco 5y ago
  Happy you feel that way ;) > We've got to repress those urges of curiosity to appease glorious science No, it's to appease our desire to live in a society that aligns with our morality. If you'd read the religious books for what they are and respect them for their interpretation of what it means to be a kind and loving human being, instead of using them as tools to manipulate the minds of the unwashed masses into behaving as a cohesive unit, then maybe you'd understand.
  - CTmystery 5y ago
    I believe the parent understood more than you are giving them credit for. You don't think you're being too dogmatic when you replace one authority (scripture) for another (science) while retaining the exact same language?
    - tinco 5y ago
      I understand their point, I just don't think I'm being too dogmati. I'll respond to your other comment with my viewpoint.
kazinator 5y ago
The content of science, the body of knowledge, by definition, not supposed to be based on authority. Authority means that exactly the same counterfactual statement is considered either right or wrong based on whether the speaker of that statement has authority. Science is currently not ultimate or final because is it is changing. For science to be ultimate and final, it would mean that tomorrow's science is the same as today's science. Nothing new or different can follow that which is ultimate. However, we need to assert social authority in order to defend a discourse against the fallacies like "argument from authority" or other unproductive disruptions.

by tinco 5y ago

CTmystery 5y ago

> Science is the only and ultimate final authority Junk science led to the American eugenics movement that included forced sterilization of 64k Americans in the early 1900s. I love science, but calling it the only and ultimate authoritity leaves a lot of room to create a world we don't want to live in. This happens because scientists disagree themselves on almost everything. Recognizing the difference in science as an ideal versus science put in practice makes me not want to agree with your statement.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
Utilizing data to continuous refine one's model of the world is the ultimate final authority. Some people call it science, some call it the scientific method, etc.
- CTmystery 5y ago
  Sure, it's a great method for understanding causal relationships in the world. It's also a method that humans invented, and it's not proven that some future invented method could not provide as much insight into the world as the scientific method. Calling it the ultimate authority and saying that "here literally can not be a higher authority than it by definition" is hard to defend IMO. Science gets its authority from consensus, right now we all agree that science should be granted authority! But it is clearly lacking as an all encompassing tool for understanding: How does the scientific method teach morality? It's not clear that it even can.
- mistermann 5y ago
  And some other people call it delusion, hubris, flawed epistemology, ironic, etc.
tinco 5y ago
That it's the ultimate authority doesn't mean you should always believe it. It's just the best we've got. It's the best thing about science is that it's explicit about the bounds of what we know and don't know. You don't ask a scientist what you should do, you ask a scientist what they think is true, and what the options are and what their estimated outcomes are. It's always you yourself who make the decision. Regardless if there was junk science in the early 1900s (don't know much about it but wouldn't be surprised), it was people who decided to sterilize people. Just as it's people who decide to kill people for Jesus Christ or Allah or whatever excuse they come up with. Even if the science were true, and some subset of Americans is less intelligent or more violent or whatever, it still wouldn't change the fact that now we've decided that eugenics is unethical. We embrace diversity because that's what aligns to our values. Maybe if we're in the middle of famine and war our values will shift again. The authority of science has nothing to do with it.
- CTmystery 5y ago
  Perhaps we disagree on the definition of 'the authority of science'. Also FWIW I am not at all religious, in case you think I'm trying to restore scripture to it's rightful place of authority over science. I am just intrigued by this statement that science is the ultimate authority by definition, and that nothing could ever supplant it.
  - tinco 5y ago
    So science as I view/understand it, is the effort to extract knowledge from the observable universe through experiments, observations and logic. If I compare science to religion, this is where I see the difference: In the church you have the clergy, who preach their understanding of the religion, and you have the basis of the religion, usually a book. To the religious the book or some idea from the book is the foundation, and the clergy are the guides. Similarly in science you have the scientists who do the actual science, and the foundation is observations of the universe. The faith I have and my dogma, is in believing the scientists, that is the part where I can have doubt and where I might be corrected in my beliefs, and the foundation is the actual universe which as far as I have been able to tell is consistent with itself so far. It's a bit of a cop out, because any time someone says "oh but these scientists were wrong", then I will go "ok yeah but those were junk science" and move on with my merry life.

padobson 5y ago

Science is the only and ultimate final authority. Indeed, praise be to science. It really is not a bad assumption. More like a leap of faith. There literally can not be a higher authority than it by definition. How [onto]logical. It is just that it is unethical to do so, so we refrain from it. Amen, brother. We've got to repress those urges of curiosity to appease glorious science. Praise be to science! Amen.

tinco 5y ago
Happy you feel that way ;) > We've got to repress those urges of curiosity to appease glorious science No, it's to appease our desire to live in a society that aligns with our morality. If you'd read the religious books for what they are and respect them for their interpretation of what it means to be a kind and loving human being, instead of using them as tools to manipulate the minds of the unwashed masses into behaving as a cohesive unit, then maybe you'd understand.
- CTmystery 5y ago
  I believe the parent understood more than you are giving them credit for. You don't think you're being too dogmatic when you replace one authority (scripture) for another (science) while retaining the exact same language?
  - tinco 5y ago
    I understand their point, I just don't think I'm being too dogmati. I'll respond to your other comment with my viewpoint.

kazinator 5y ago

The content of science, the body of knowledge, by definition, not supposed to be based on authority. Authority means that exactly the same counterfactual statement is considered either right or wrong based on whether the speaker of that statement has authority. Science is currently not ultimate or final because is it is changing. For science to be ultimate and final, it would mean that tomorrow's science is the same as today's science. Nothing new or different can follow that which is ultimate. However, we need to assert social authority in order to defend a discourse against the fallacies like "argument from authority" or other unproductive disruptions.