The Validity of Science

[SkinWalker]

Okay... I did something a bit creative here in order to split the threads.

 

Short Explanation of the housecleaning

A discussion regarding the validity of science was started in Important Amendments thread, so I split it. If anyone was logged into the forum at that time, they saw two of the "amendment" threads for a sec. This was so I could delete partial posts of mine and preserve my post at the top to offer something of an introduction to the topic.

 

The Validity of Science, and are soft disciplines of psychology, history, anthropology, archaeology, etc. considered to be sciences?

 

Before addressing this, I think it important for us to agree upon a definition of "science." I like this one,

 

NOAA's Coral Reef Information website Glossary

a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study

 

But I recognize that entire monographs, dissertations and books have been written on defining science.

 

In terms of history and archaeology, I believe firmly in the philosophical position of logical positivism, which dictates that there is an objectively knowable past that can be discovered through rigid adherence to scientific methods. A similar approach can likely be applied to other disciplines, such as psychology.

 

There are many who will argue that one cannot applie scientific method to history and archaeology, but that is false. I will admit that both disciplines are contaminated with failures to utilize scienctific method, but it can, and is applied. Particularly with modern historians and anthropologists (which includes archaeologists).

 

The methodology employed for research is often referred to as the hypothetico-deductive model:

 

• Observe phenomena
  
• Induce hyptheses that define what results can be expected if the hypotheses are accurate
  
• Test these hypotheses following scientific procedures, usually emphasizing falsification (the attempt to disprove rather than prove a hypothesis, thus encouraging objectivity)
  
• Deduce, based on the results of testing, which hypotheses are viable and which are not
  
• Return to the observation stage and revise the research until such work is no longer possible. What remains is therefore provisionally accepted, and research continues
  

[ShadowTemplar]

Individual psychoanalysis to determine maturity would be a little time-consuming. Even though there are enough goddamn shrinks around to do the job already.

 

Not to mention the fact that psychology is hardly a scientific disciplin.

[Spider AL]

Not to mention the fact that psychology is hardly a scientific disciplin.

You're not a scientologist are you...

 

On the whole I agree, but then again, nothing is as "scientific" as scientists would like us to believe. There is no scientific law, merely hypotheses that have not yet been proven to be incorrect. Nothing can be proven to be incontrivertably right.

[ShadowTemplar]

Hmmm... Philosophically you're right. But consider such examples as the electron's charge. That's measured to nine or ten significant figures. To quote Laughlin (from memory) "You can't argue with ten significant figures. [...] That's equal to counting the number of people in the entire world, and not missing a single person!"

 

Or such things as Newtonian dynamics. These cannot be downright wrong. They may be incomplete (in fact they are, as has been known since the beginning of the 20th cent.). They may not be fundamental (likewise this has been known for a long time). But they explain so many observations in so consistent, correct and simple a fashion that they cannot be all wrong.

[Spider AL]

they explain so many observations in so consistent, correct and simple a fashion that they cannot be all wrong.

Not being "all wrong" does not qualify something as being "right" in terms as concrete as scientists often use in the press.

 

Likewise I'm certain that all the ancient forbears of scientists believed that such concepts as "aether" explained so many observations in so consistent a fashion that they could not be "all wrong". And in some ways, they weren't. But that didn't make them "right" enough to be the whole of the law.

 

Science is the art of increasing humanity's understanding of the universe... but its attempts to be regarded as modern day religious truth are misguided. The effectiveness of science is not in explaining everything to the point of infinite precision (though this is a good motivational goal for scientists), because it's not going to happen. Instead, it is to produce practical applications that improve life and make death more efficiently deliverable. (An even better motivational goal.)

 

Radio and railguns, such things are what science is good for.

 

(Grammar Edit)

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

I have absolutely no idea as to where you have that from [pyschology not being scientific], but let me ensure you that you are completely wrong.

 

There are those that view science as only those disciplines that engage in specific, measurable results to tests of hypotheses. They ignore the fact that "softer" disciplines utilize scientific method in reaching conclusions based upon quantifiable results.

 

Though I would agree that there are many more opportunities for interpretation errors and confirmation bias in disciplines where inferrances have to be made. Psychology/psychiatry are two examples. But neither can the science of survey and study along with quantifiable statistics be ignored or dismissed. This is how we've been able to counter conditions like depression or anxiety with medication after all.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by Spider AL

Not being "all wrong" does not qualify something as being "right" in terms as concrete as scientists often use in the press.

 

Likewise I'm certain that all the ancient forbears of scientists believed that such concepts as "aether" explained so many observations in so consistent a fashion that they could not be "all wrong". And in some ways, they weren't. But that didn't make them "right" enough to be the whole of the law.

 

You evidently have no comprehension of the vastness of the data material backing these theories.

 

Science is the art of increasing humanity's understanding of the universe... but its attempts to be regarded as modern day religious truth are misguided.

 

Science isn't trying to be regarded as a modern religion. In fact for that to happen would be a supreme failure for science.

 

The effectiveness of science is not in explaining everything to the point of infinite precision (though this is a good motivational goal for scientists), because it's not going to happen.

 

Of course not. We'll hit our head against the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle long before that...

 

Instead, it is to produce practical applications that improve life and make death more efficiently deliverable. (An even better motivational goal.)

 

Possibly your gravest mistake yet. One-sided focus on technological applications is foolish and unproductive. Groundbreaking research - research that does not guarentee results (and certainly not immediate ones at that) is the very foundation of technological development. Single-minded focus on technology thus works against your admirable goal of technological development.

 

Scientific theories are exactly as close to - or as far from - truth as the scientists claim. Only sometimes people don't understand the reservations that the scientists make. And who can blame them. After all, making correct reservations and computing inaccuracies precisely is the very hardest part of science. But it is also the part of science that makes it truely valueable.

 

There are those that view science as only those disciplines that engage in specific, measurable results to tests of hypotheses. They ignore the fact that "softer" disciplines utilize scientific method in reaching conclusions based upon quantifiable results.

 

For once you're actually wrong here, Skin. Scientific method calls for not only quantifiability, but also reproducability, a fact that you seem to have overlooked here.

 

Psychology/psychiatry are two examples. But neither can the science of survey and study along with quantifiable statistics be ignored or dismissed. This is how we've been able to counter conditions like depression or anxiety with medication after all.

 

You make two crucial mistakes here. The first is equating psychology and psychiatry. The latter incorporates far more of the results aquired from medical science than the former. The second mistake is to claim that psychopharmaca are derived from psychiatric and/or psychological methods, when in fact psychopharmaca owe more homage to neurobiology.

 

In conclusion, let me suggest that we abandon these discussions or relocate them to other threads.

[Spider AL]

You evidently have no comprehension of the vastness of the data material backing these theories.

Ooooh, good retort, not. If all else fails, call the opposition ignorant.

 

The fact that you're unwilling to accept the possibility that the prevailing scientific theories may in fact be merely incomplete hypotheses explaining some of the aspects of the physical universe, (which is undoubtedly what they are) speaks volumes as to your lack of vision, both retrospective and prospective.

 

Science isn't trying to be regarded as a modern religion. In fact for that to happen would be a supreme failure for science.

Oh of course it is, and yes, it is a supreme failure for good science. Science is now laden down with dogma that restricts both scientific advancement and attempts to dictate everyone's behaviour, from what we eat to what we think.

 

How many scientists with revolutionary theories have been put down as "heretics" by the scientific hierarchy in recent years? Accepted wisdom is the law in the halls of academe, not original thought. This slows down progress abominably.

 

Possibly your gravest mistake yet. One-sided focus on technological applications is foolish and unproductive.

HA! My mistake? Try your mistake. If focus on technological applications is foolish and unproductive, how is it that by far the largest proportion of the major technological advances in history have been predicated upon weapons research, and military application of science to achieve concrete (and lethal) results? How about comfort in and around the home? How many feats of science and engineering went into our plumbing and sewage systems? It's the practical that drives science, because that's where the real money is. (Though not necessarily for the scientists themselves.) Make no mistake.

 

Scientific theories are exactly as close to - or as far from - truth as the scientists claim.

What UTTER tosh. How many scientists do we see on our television screens every week, proclaiming their latest hypothesis as divine truth, and dictating people's actions accordingly? Wodges, that's how many.

 

For once you're actually wrong here, Skin. Scientific method calls for not only quantifiability, but also reproducability, a fact that you seem to have overlooked here.

This neglects the fact that one can reproduce many effects in psychology, but one can be completely mistaken as to the actual cause of these effects. The vastness of the human mind does NOT help matters here.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

For once you're actually wrong here, Skin. Scientific method calls for not only quantifiability, but also reproducability, a fact that you seem to have overlooked here.

 

Not "wrong," merely incomplete I was in a bit of a hurry when I typed that (either at work or between classes). But reproducability is present in disciplines such as psychology and anthropology/archaeology. I'm more qualifed to speak on the latter discipline/sub-discipline, but I believe it holds in psychology as well.

 

In chemistry, reproducability is clear and immediately measurable. 2 mol of x / 3 mL soln of y x 45.7 mL of z soln = Moles XYZ.

 

In archaeology, reproducability can be more subtle. If, for instance, I find microlithic remains at a particular strata, which has striations of silica on the cutting edge, I might begin with that observation to infer what it means. Of the many hypotheses I develop, one is that the microlithic burins, a artificially shaped tool, were applied to organic material such as bone, wood, or antler to create a large serated tool. I then recognize that antlers are often curved and the tool would resemble a sickle. A sickle implies agriculture such as the harveting of wheat. Wheat is silica rich, which supports the hypothesis since silica marks are found on the tools.

 

Here's where the reproducability comes in: I predict that other sites of related cultures will reveal the same burin microliths. Moreover, I predict that evidence of harvested wheat will be found in the form of grain sans hulles or middens of chaff. Perhaps even saddle querns (grinding stones).

 

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

...when in fact psychopharmaca owe more homage to neurobiology.

 

I don't discount the significance of neurosciences to development of psychotropic medications, but I also give a lot of credance to the psychologists that evaluate the behavior and effects of the drugs post application to the patient. I also have some good insight into the psychological explanations of concepts of grief, anger, etc. and have been personally successful in offering counseling to at risk teens based upon this information. I recognize that psychology is a very loose discipline and open to far too much interpretation, but I believe that this is a failure of adherence to scientific method and hypothetico-deductive model.

 

Psychologists that spend the time to conduct studies with control samples and large study samples benefit the greatest. Those that simply regurgitate the paradigms of other psychologists (Freud, Jung, Adler, Fowler, et al) without consideration of evidence are probably more hit/miss in their assumptions.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Spider AL

Oh of course it is ["science" not being regarded as religion], and yes, it is a supreme failure for good science. Science is now laden down with dogma that restricts both scientific advancement and attempts to dictate everyone's behaviour, from what we eat to what we think.

 

 

I think it would be more effective of an argument on your part if you could cite an example. I take a different point of view and see science as nothing like religion. The latter relies upon not only dogma, but ritual and unbounded belief systems to explain the observable universe. Science explains with what evidence is available, revises when new evidence is demonstrated, and simply says, "we don't know" when evidence is lacking or incomplete.

 

There's no religion to science.

 

Originally posted by Spider AL

How many scientists with revolutionary theories have been put down as "heretics" by the scientific hierarchy in recent years?

 

Please, do tell.

 

Originally posted by Spider AL

Accepted wisdom is the law in the halls of academe, not original thought. This slows down progress abominably.

 

Original thought without evidence is merely speculation. Speculation is fine, but when offered as explanation it is received with criticism that is well-earned. Original with evidence is highly embraced!

 

Originally posted by Spider AL

What UTTER tosh. How many scientists do we see on our television screens every week, proclaiming their latest hypothesis as divine truth, and dictating people's actions accordingly? Wodges, that's how many.

 

Not sure what a "wodge" is, but scientists rarely appear on "television screens" in the U.S., perhaps its different in the U.K. Americans don't like their so-called reality TV interrupted. But I have to agree with Shadow T., on this. A theory is merely an accepted set of tested hypotheses (i.e. evolutionary theory, quantum theory, human migration theory, etc.). Science and scientists recognize that they are falsifiable and testable and subject to revisement. Scientists don't make an attempt to suggest that their "theory" is divine truth. Ever. If they do, then they are automatically assigned the term pseudoscientist.

 

Originally posted by Spider AL

This neglects the fact that one can reproduce many effects in psychology, but one can be completely mistaken as to the actual cause of these effects. The vastness of the human mind does NOT help matters here.

 

Indeed, correlation does not automatically imply causation. Which is why studies in psychology must relie on large sample sizes and attempts to falsify their hypotheses. In fact, psychologists readily accept the fact that when dealing with individuals possibilities are endless. They also realize that their explanations are typically post hoc but useful in determing effective treatment strategies.

[Spider AL]

There's no religion to science.

Not really my issue... my issue is that there are prominent elements within the scientific hierarchy that wish to PRESENT their hypotheses as true, instead of representing them more conservatively.

 

Now, we know that all scientific concepts are merely hypotheses that haven't yet been disproven... but the majority of the public does not. Lie by omission, is what I'd call it.

 

Please, do tell.

I think it would be more effective of an argument on your part if you could cite an example.

Well the example I'm thinking of at this moment is the Helicobacter strain that contributes to the formation of gastric ulcers.

 

Here's a link to the story: http://www.vianet.net.au/~bjmrshll/features2.html

 

And here's my synopsis: In the eighties, a pair of scientists came up with the idea that stomach ulcers were not spontaneously forming ailments, but were at least partially caused by a strain of bacteria. They developed their theory further, acquired samples and cultured them, and presented their idea to the scientific community. The resistance to the new idea was absolutely abominable. Ulcers were DEFINITELY caused by stress and poor diet, and that was all. (On a side note, contemporary anti-ulcer medications were threatened by this new concept, which begs a question about the pharmaceutical industry's stake in scientific dogma) Eventually Marshall, the ulcer-free lead scientist, took the rather drastic step of swallowing a culture of these critters to prove their effect. When this was a success, the scientific community STILL didn't sit up and take notice. It took further years of pressure, studies and research papers to make them believe that this concept was POSSIBLE, let alone plausible.

 

Now, scientists shouldn't have to DO those sorts of excessive things to prove their theories. Not if the scientific community isn't weighed down with existing dogma.

 

Original thought without evidence is merely speculation.

See the previous example. We're not talking about madmen with mad thoughts here, we're talking about documented and provable theories that are ignored. I've noted several such prominent instances over the years, and will dig them out if possible. Ah, Lorenzo's oil, does that ring any bells? It was recently FINALLY proven to have beneficial/preventitive effects to the scientific community's satisfaction. How long did that take? OOHO! Global warming! There's another example. It's all totally unacceptable.

 

Not sure what a "wodge" is, but scientists rarely appear on "television screens" in the U.S., perhaps its different in the U.K

Yes it is. Scientific interviewees appear regularly on our news programmes. And a "wodge" is "a whole lot".

 

Scientists don't make an attempt to suggest that their "theory" is divine truth. Ever.

Once again, I must point out that they don't sit up on stage and say "what I'm telling you is divine truth". They don't have to. They merely rubbish the opinions of not only the public, but other, more junior scientists as well. And nor do they often say "bear in mind that this is only a scientific hypothesis at this point". They present their theories as divine truth by simply failing to acknowledge the existence of any other theory.

 

If they do, then they are automatically assigned the term pseudoscientist.

By whom? If a prominent scientist with influence says something that is unscientific, I doubt the entire community they carry so much weight in would dismiss them out of hand.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Well, I think it's important here to distinguish between the 'pure' philosophy of science, and how science ends up working on the real world.

...two different things entirely.

 

In the 'ideal' world of scientific thought, it would not be affected by politics or hidden agendas. Scientists would only dismiss claims of other scientists on the theories they proposed and the corresponding evidence, not because they have a lot of 'vested interest' in their own established theories, or their just plain stubborn etc.etc.

 

But, unfortunately at the end of the day, scientists are human, like anybody else. So they can be - at times - greedy, ignorant, overly dismissive etc.

...in practical terms, no scientist is in fact a 100% perfect scientist! You can come pretty close maybe (and let's be clear, I'm not talking about being 'smart'. I'm talking about being totally objective, clinical and logical and ignoring all possible alteriour motives 100% of the time...)

 

So to take an instance of a case where a scientist, or even a group of scientists, acted in an 'un-scientific' way doesn't actually tell you that much about the core principles of science itself.

...that just tells you that everybody's human.

 

You can, however, see the basic philosophy of science in action if you look at science overall, in both a global and historical context.

When viewed in this light, and when compared with say religion, you have to come to the following conclusion...

...Scientific 'communities' are far more willing, overall, to accept new theories (when back up with evidence) which alter or even plain contridict older theories.

And they will be FAR more willing to admit in any given case that even the established theories could be wrong, and not to be thought of as 'infalible'

 

When Enstein provided evidence that Newton might not have got that whole 'gravity' stuff 'quite' right, he wasn't branded a heritic and threatened with 'ex-communication' (At least not by the majority of scientists anyway...)

[Spider AL]

So to take an instance of a case where a scientist, or even a group of scientists, acted in an 'un-scientific' way doesn't actually tell you that much about the core principles of science itself.

That's the same defence christians have been using to defend christianity for years, and I fear it doesn't wash... no, I don't dislike christians. They are individuals, so no. But do I dislike christianity? Yes, because of its history. Because of its flaws. Because it professes to be exemplary of high ideals and yet consistently fails to achieve them.

 

This can be said of both the scientific community and organised religion. Do I think that they're both as bad as each other? No, I would prefer one over the other. But do I think that either of them are squeaky clean and lily-white? No I do not.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Your not really concceding my point Spider.

 

Your judging the core philosophy by the eventual outcome alone.

And since we already know the eventual outcome is always going to be imperfect because all humans are imperfect, your always going to see the basic philosophy as irrelavent.

 

A religion like Christianity - at it's very heart - embraces ideas of 'infalibility' in particular ideas, which will be adheared to without question and without alteration.

 

Science is the exact opposite - in terms of it's philosophy.

 

It can't be helped what people end up choosing to do, no matter what underlying philosophy they may 'try' and adhere to.

 

Whomever might have suggested Science was ever here to, or was ever gonna be able to, make the world 'squeaky clean' doesn't have much of a grip on reality imo.

Perhaps you mean that the philosophy of science is seen as 'squeaky clean'?

In terms of a method of truth-seeking, I would say yes. (Or I'd like to see someone come up with a better way )

As a method for determing what is 'moral', it can help, since you need to be informed to make a moral choice. But science isn't equipped to actually make moral choices. THat's not what it's for.

 

Science is about the discovery of truth.

Most religions also 'claim' to have this aim.

 

Science achieves this aim well overall (when practiced 'properly' of course...)

Religion does not.

 

That's the only 'judging' bar I hold against Science. Does if help us learn the truth about the facts...

 

you can't critise 'science' itself for being or encouraging 'immoral' attitudes. It makes no sense. (You can critisise indivudal scientists, or groups of scientists - but this has already been covered. Their just people - just like everybody else)

 

You CAN however clearly link the philosophies of religion for interfearing with morality, since religion very often sees morals AS facts (God-given facts).

This is what has to be recognised...

[Spider AL]

Your not really concceding my point Spider.

Of course I'm not conceding your point, I'm arguing against it.

 

And since we already know the eventual outcome is always going to be imperfect because all humans are imperfect, your always going to see the basic philosophy as irrelavent.

I've said nothing about the philosophy behind scientific endeavour, Renegade. I don't know where you got that from to be honest. I've been talking about the scientific community worldwide. Like Christianity, many of the principles it's based on are entirely laudable, but I refuse to ignore the deep flaws in the actual organisation and its history just because it's got some good ground rules that it doesn't actually live by.

 

A religion like Christianity - at it's very heart - embraces ideas of 'infalibility' in particular ideas, which will be adheared to without question and without alteration.

Actually, while Christianity does believe in an infallible God, it does not maintain that humans are infallible, quite the reverse. Catholicism may maintain the divinity of papal doctrine, but since everyone knows that's all bluster, I don't see how that's relevant to any discussion of other comparable human organisations.

 

Science is about the discovery of truth.

Most religions also 'claim' to have this aim.

Science achieves this aim well overall (when practiced 'properly' of course...)

Religion does not.

If you consider the always incomplete hypotheses of science to be "truth" in totality, that's kind of what I've been arguing against all along, isn't it.

 

A true scientist that lived up to the ideals of science, the core philosophy behind it, well, he would always maintain the idea that there is no truth, but merely continuously improving levels of practical understanding. Very little in science has remained unaltered throughout the totality of history. What then, is truth? In a thousand years we may well have discarded today's incomplete scientific principles for better, more effective ones. We may have discarded today's inadequate terminology for a superior descriptive repertoire. Truth? Something that is ABSOLUTELY proven? I think not.

 

Maybe you're more likely to find absolute truth in religion, I know I consider some of the precepts of Buddhism to come very close.

 

you can't critise 'science' itself for being or encouraging 'immoral' attitudes. It makes no sense. (You can critisise indivudal scientists, or groups of scientists - but this has already been covered. Their just people - just like everybody else)

Oh of course you can criticise science for the behaviour of scientists en-masse, just as you can criticise christianity for the behaviour of christians en-masse. They too have been saying "It's not christianity, it's individuals" for years, and this defence is both impractical from a remedial point of view, and lowly in its slipperiness.

 

It's interesting to me that you're using arguments traditionally used to defend organised religion, to defend a group that you're trying to distance from organised religion.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Like Christianity, many of the principles it's based on are entirely laudable, but I refuse to ignore the deep flaws in the actual organisation and its history just because it's got some good groundrules that it doesn't actually live by

 

I've already said this as well, so we have no point of contention here - at all.

Shame. Rucks are more fun aren't they?

 

Actually, while Christianity does believe in an infallible God, it does not maintain that humans are infallible, quite the reverse.

 

Where did you ever get the idea I said that Christians think that any human's are infalliable?

I said that Christianity have 'ideas' that are infalliable (The bible is truth etc. etc.) And since the Bible directly deals with moral issues, this affects morality in ways which Science NEVER can...

 

A true scientist that lived up to the ideals of science, the core philosophy behind it, well, he would always maintain the idea that there is no truth, but merely continuously improving levels of practical understanding. Very little in science has remained unaltered throughout the totality of history. What then, is truth? In a thousand years we may well have discarded today's incomplete scientific principles for better, more effective ones. We may have discarded today's inadequate terminology for a superior descriptive repertoire. Truth? Something that is ABSOLUTELY proven? I think not.

 

I think - simply - that there IS absolute truth. But to assume we will or should discover it ALL is pretty nieve.

(I'm not aiming the 'term' nieve at you - at all. I'm aiming it at anybody who does indeed think this...)

 

Oh of course you can criticise science for the behaviour of scientists en-masse, just as you can criticise christianity for the behaviour of christians en-masse.

 

Nonsense.

Name me one instance where someone has done something 'bad' (in a moral sense) based on a basic philosophy of science...

Hmm - methinks you may not really understand what the underlying philosophies of Science actually are Or if you do your somehow twisting them beyond all recognition.

 

The philosophies of science cannot influence the moral 'actions' of those who adhere to them, since they do not have any prescribed notion on any moral issue!

..if you disagree (and assuming you know some scientific philosophies), please name one which has any bearing on a moral issue to prove your point...

 

Please enlighten me as to how Baconian philosophies have ever affected morality? Or Popparian perhaps? Perhaps you have a stance on how the Bayesian approach is affecting the morality of scientists

 

It's interesting to me that you're using arguments traditionally used to defend organised religion, to defend a group that you're trying to distance from organised religion

 

Woah woah - slow down there. PLease allow me to decide what I am and am not defending please - thanks

 

I specifically said I DON'T defend any group of scientists. (Including any and all organised scientific 'communities'). So why are you saying that I do?!

What happens if some of the scientists are religious too? Do I have to pick a side or something?! You tell me - I'm unsure of the rules of this little game your constructing here...

 

You get religious nutcases, a**eholes and sadistic bastards.

You can also get scientific nutcases, a**eholes and sadistic bastards.

You can get combinations of the two, or perhaps s**eholes with no inclination to think about much more than being a**eholes.

...what has this got to do with the underlying philosophies governing scientific thought? (e.g. when do we think of a given theory as 'proven' etc.)

[Spider AL]

Where did you ever get the idea I said that Christians think that any human's are infalliable?

Basically because the issue of human fallibillity is the only relevant fallibillity-issue to this argument. Thus, I felt you were probably referring to the supposed divinity of papal doctrine. If you weren't, you weren't.

 

And since the Bible directly deals with moral issues, this affects morality in ways which Science NEVER can...

I dispute this. Science pervades all aspects of our society these days. The ramifications of the things science has GIVEN us, are moral in nature. Weaponry has been done to death as an example, so... ummm...

 

Science gave us processed and microwaved food, and thus has presented parents with a moral dilemma that they never had before... Whether to be mentally lazy and feed your children processed crap, or to be moral and take better care of them even though it costs more and takes more time. You get the idea.

 

The word of the scientific community is also important in presenting us with moral choices. We have a moral decision to make as regards the environment: Do we pay extra for greener products? For... errr... non-CFC hairspray? Well if the bulk of the scientific community (As they did) tells us that there's no such thing as global warming, why bother? They have an incredible moral impact on the world. They are a priesthood of a different shade, preaching that which they think we should know, and restricting the proliferation of that knowledge which does not further the aims of their masters.

 

Emotive language, I know, but I can cite examples to support it.

 

I think - simply - that there IS absolute truth. But to assume we will or should discover it ALL is pretty nieve.

I too believe that there is ultimate truth that the human species will never discover.

 

But I will.

 

The atom bomb wasn't dropped by a scientist in the name of science.

THe crusades, however were acted out in the name of Christianity 'for' christianity (in their minds).

Oh yes, I know the crusades were also about power etc. But the war WAS waged in the name of religion.

...name me one war that has been waged in the name of science..?!

...no - didn't think so...

Sorry, but this doesn't wash. Deities are intangible, so ALL you can do with them is "do stuff in their names."

 

Science is nebulous in its identity, and tangible in its effect so it can ACTUALLY GIVE US WEAPONRY.

 

Both have a similarly destructive result, so the difference in approach is moot in that respect.

 

Wars may not have been fought in the name of science, but actions have certainly been fought to test weaponry. And how many people have been tested on in the name of science, to their detriment? Military testing, Nazi experimentation (which modern scientists have referred to to further their goals, so don't start thinking they're completely separate from the herd,) How many animals have been tortured for their entire lives, lobotomized, eviscerated and killed, all in the name of science?

 

Don't start asking me to weigh the evils of two shambolic entities. I can't do it. I can't separate them in that way, though I do in other ways, aforementioned.

 

Woah woah - slow down there. PLease allow me to decide what I am and am not defending please - thanks

 

I specifically said I DON'T defend any group of scientists. (Including any and all organised scientific 'communities'). So why are you saying that I do?!

If you're not defending the scientific community from my criticism of it, why are you opposing only the points in which I criticise science?

 

This whole debate began when I stated that the scientific community, as a composite entity, likes to present its theories as fact through lying by omission in the press...

 

...what has this got to do with the underlying philosophies governing scientific thought?

Well since I've been discussing the merits of the scientific community as it actually exists, and not the merits of its "core philosophy", why don't you tell me? I thought we'd settled the issue of my stance on the philosophies of both science and religion fairly quickly and painlessly about two posts ago.

 

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Look - let me get this straight.

When I say 'philosophies' of Science, I'm talking about the philosophies discussed by people like Francis Bacon and Karl Popper. (THe philosophy of how [and if you indeed can] determine what is true, and what isn't)

 

If that's not what your talking about, then I guess I'll apologise for any misunderstanding (alhtough I don't think it's fair to blame it all on me, but what the hey - I'll take it )

But I'm very confident that those are accurately termed the 'philosophies of science'.

 

So let's move on from that.

 

I guess your argument is:

 

'Since science can create the microwave and make us lazy, and create the atom bomb and kill millions of people, then science 'itself' should be to blame for those lazy people and those dead people'.

 

Is this about accurate?

Well, if this is your argument, I'd say it's very subjective. And if we wanted to disagree, we'd find plenty of ways to do so...

It all depends on your definition of 'Science'...

 

For my part, I don't see that 'Should microwaves be built' has ANYTHING to do with science.

HOW do you build a microwave and HOW does it work has everything to do with science.

 

Science is just a tool. If you want to see it as more in terms of organisations etc., then that's your call.

However, I call a scientific community 'group of men who (are attempting to) wield the tool of science'.

 

They coudl wield that tool badly. (Scrappy, bad science - like a crappy carpenter using a hammer and nails. It's not the hammer's fault the carpenter is crappy )

They can also use that tool to do harm, and for evil (Immoral science - like the gun in the hand of a tyrant).

 

But I don't see a reason to blame the tool.

 

If you see it that way, then fine. No point in discussing that really - it's up to you how you view it..

 

The word of the scientific community is also important in presenting us with moral choices.

 

I would never accept that any scientific comunity has the right to offer me a moral 'standing' which I should follow - and if I was presented with on from such a group, I'd tell them to shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

..and if you profess to having your own mind and have any ounce of sense, you will do the same...

 

Their job is to try their best to tell us what IS and what ISN'T - using the tool of 'science'.

You cannot use the tool of science to come to moral conclusions - it's a complete misnomer.

 

Again, if scientific commmunities are producing 'morals' and trying to push them onto anybody, then that's the community 'wielding' the tool of science badly.

...dont' blame the tool, blame the tool user (Who could also accurately be described as a 'tool' )

[Spider AL]

But I don't see a reason to blame the tool.

 

If you see it that way, then fine. No point in discussing that really - it's up to you how you view it..

What I've been criticising throughout this debate, is the scientific community as a whole. They are not a tool, they are a group of people. A group of people, with much hypocrisy and many flaws, collectively. That's what I've been talking about, since my first post. Clearly.

 

If that's not what your talking about, then I guess I'll apologise for any misunderstanding (alhtough I don't think it's fair to blame it all on me, but what the hey - I'll take it )

But I'm very confident that those are accurately termed the 'philosophies of science'.

I think we both agree upon the definition of "the philosophies of science". What we do NOT agree on is whether you should keep going on about them.

 

 

I guess your argument is:

 

'Since science can create the microwave and make us lazy, and create the atom bomb and kill millions of people, then science 'itself' should be to blame for those lazy people and those dead people'.

Don't misrepresent. My argument is (and always has been) that the scientific community should take responsibility for their PART in such events. Just as Christianity should take responsibility for its part in evil doings, and its failings.

 

I would never accept that any scientific comunity has the right to offer me a moral choice - and if I was presented with on from such a group, I'd tell them to shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

The group in question presents you with information, correct? And the information they present to you influences you, correct? So of course they can affect your life, your moral judgements, whether you have the OPPORTUNITY to make moral judgements... pretty much anything. Unlike organised religion however, they don't do it through telling you what is moral and what isn't, they do it indirectly.

 

Governments have a history of using this to further their ends, just as religion has been used to further their ends.

 

dont' blame the tool, blame the tool user

This, once again, is "don't blame christianity, blame the christians". I say that if you're part of a group, profess to be part of that group and are accepted as part of that group, the group must collectively share responsibility for your actions. Heck, they take CREDIT if one of their members does something great, so they HAVE to take some blame if they do something wrong. It's the same in religion, science, governments,.. you name it.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

I think we both agree upon the definition of "the philosophies of science". What we do NOT agree on is whether you should keep going on about them.

 

Ehem, the fact is this definition has everything to do with it, because it's obvious you've been subconsiously adding 'community' to any instance where I've used the word 'Science'.

..why do YOU have to keep deciding what I say? If I want to say 'scientific community', I'll SAY 'scientific community'...

 

...It's one thing to disagree with me. It's another thing to alter my very arguments in your own head and then make sarcastic comments because of misunderstandings YOU yourself have created.

 

 

Scientific philosophies have nothing to do with morals, so any moral standing of any given scientists or group of scientists comes from 'elsewhere'. (Religion, politics, other social pressure, personal greed - take ya pick)

 

Whether you accept or understand this doesn't change this simple, irrefutable fact.

 

Again, my challenge to you is to describe a moral desision made according to the scientific philosophies of - say - Karl Popper...

...until you can, the philosophy of science continues to have no bearing on whether some scientists are a**sholes...

 

I can, however, introduce you a Christian who believes Homosexuals are fundementally less worthy than him.

And this can be directly attribitutable to the fact that this is what his 'philosophy' teaches him. A philosophy which he 'believes' has come from God himself...

[Spider AL]

I can, however, introduce you a Christian who believes Homosexuals are fundementally less worthy than him.

And this can be directly attribitutable to the fact that this is what his 'philosophy' teaches him. A philosophy which he 'believes' has come from God himself...

Actually it's "hate the sin, not the sinner", so there shouldn't be any malice involved.

 

That being said, so what? Scientists (on the whole) believe that homeopathic alchemists, faith healers, psychics, farseers, scryers and withinlookmen are less worthy than them. This is directly attributable to the fact that this is what their "philosophy" teaches them.

 

Ehem, the fact is this definition has everything to do with it.

No it doesn't. Nobody's said that the "philosophies of science" somehow magically cause evil to happen from within their dusty books, any more than the bible "makes evil happen". So why do you keep going on about them? Who knows. That's a mystery even science may never unravel.

 

Again, my challenge to you is to describe a moral desision made according to the scientific philosophies of - say - Karl Popper...

I can describe a moral decision made according to the information dispensed by the SCIENTISTS who profess to follow those philosophies.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Actually it's "hate the sin, not the sinner", so there shouldn't be any malice involved.

 

Again, you seem to read my words and then create your own

Read back and comprehend I didn't use the word 'hate'

..you think hate (or malice) and worth are the same bloody words?!

 

any more than the bible "makes evil happen".

 

The Bible HAS been directly involved in influencing 'evil' actions. It is every day.

Some good ones too, granted. But doesn't exuse the evil ones...

 

Scientists (on the whole) believe that homeopathic alchemists, faith healers, psychics, farseers, scryers and withinlookmen are less worthy than them. This is directly attributable to the fact that this is what their "philosophy" teaches them.

 

Yes!! Haha - indeed. In the famous words of Karl Popper:

 

'Scientists are the best! Other people are less worthy! Woohoo!'

 

Wow - your right - this Karl Popper was a right c**t

 

Your looking at the attitudes of some scientists and calling that 'philosophy'! Heh, hilarious.

..what's next? 'I like wearing loud shirts' philosophy? 'I like pointlessly starting and fueling online arguments' philosophy?! (of which both you and I are proud followers of btw)

 

I can describe a moral decision made according to the information dispensed by the SCIENTISTS who profess to follow those philosophies.

 

Well done. You can provide something which I didn't ask for, and doesn't add anything to your argument. Thanks, but no thanks

 

Some bloke asks me where a certain street is. I give him that information. He then goes to someone's house on that street and kills them.

...well of course I'm to blame for giving out the information! Silly me! OK - before I direct anybody again, I'd better get a full background check.

...hmm - maybe not. Maybe I'll assign blame where it actually belongs instead... Yeah - that sounds much more sensible to me...

[Spider AL]

Again, you seem to read my words and then create your own

Read back and comprehend I didn't use the word 'hate'

..you think hate (or malice) and worth are the same bloody words?!

Don't start getting flippant. I noted that there would be no hate involved, to ENSURE that you and everyone that read the thread, knew it. I'm not leaving you any back doors to scuttle out from.

 

The Bible HAS been directly involved in influencing 'evil' actions. It is every day.

Rubbish, the bible's philosophy (bearing in mind that there are different versions of the bible, and different testaments therein) is a good philosophy. If christianity lived up to its principles, it would be a better institution. Likewise, if scientists lived up to scientific ideals, the halls of science would be brighter and more moral.

 

To echo your defence: "It's not the bible, it's christians!"

 

Your looking at the attitudes of some scientists and calling that 'philosophy'! Heh, hilarious.

No, I'm looking at philosophy. The philosophy of science is that the best way to accurately research is to collect empirical data through reproducable testing, right? Right. So anyone who goes about their search for truth in a less organised, shamanic way, would be less of a seeker after the truth, more misguided, less accurate. Obviously, a researcher of less worth.

 

Well done. You can provide something which I didn't ask for

I'm not interested in what YOU want, I'm telling you what I'm talking about, what I'M debating and what MY points are. You can go and play with your philosophy till the cows come home, I wasn't discussing it before you arrived and I'm not going to get any further into it.

 

Some bloke asks me where a certain street is. I give him that information. He then goes to someone's house on that street and kills them.

...well of course I'm to blame for giving out the information! Silly me! OK - before I direct anybody again, I'd better get a full background check.

Let me give YOU an example. An injured man comes up to you, a scientist, and asks for directions to the hospital. You tell him that you haven't accurately determined that yet, and that the current theory on the hospital's location conflicts with accepted scientific principles.

 

Thus, you're not going to tell him the location of the hospital until at least three more years of animal testing and seven more study papers have been completed.

 

He bleeds out while pleading with you. Whose fault is it? Yours, yes, DARN YOU TO HECKFIRE YOU MURDERING DOG!

 

But dogmatic science is also to blame, and therefore the character of the scientific community shares certain responsiblities in the matter.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Rubbish, the bible's philosophy (bearing in mind that there are different versions of the bible, and different testaments therein) is a good philosophy. If christianity lived up to its principles, it would be a better institution. Likewise, if scientists lived up to scientific ideals, the halls of science would be brighter and more moral.

 

To echo your defence: "It's not the bible, it's christians!"

 

The biggest piece of b*ll**** you've written thus far.

 

The Bible contains many hideous, barbaric and downright inhumane concepts, alongside - fair enough - some good concepts too, and some indifferent concepts.

..and it doesn't take 'bad' Christians to translate these concepts into 'bad' deeds. In fact - sadly, GOOD Christians end up doing those 'bad' deeds, often in the most misguided fashions possible...

...I suggest you actually try reading it sometime before deciding what moral value it contains.

You obviously haven't, or you wouldn't have made such a dumb statement...

 

If scientists consistently lived up to scientific ideals 'properly', then the world's moral standing could very well be NO different at all. The only thing you COULD say for sure is that we'd know far more about the universe around us by now...

We could still be using that knowledge to f**k the world up. Lots of scientists are contributing to that right now. And yes, they are in the wrong.

...but there is no scientific ideal which says 'F**k up the planet, or feel your better than everybody else blah blah'

...this is all in your head... (you know, where I say something and the words get altered)

 

Let me give YOU an example. An injured man comes up to you, a scientist, and asks for directions to the hospital. You tell him that you haven't accurately determined that yet, and that the current theory on the hospital's location conflicts with accepted scientific principles.

 

Thus, you're not going to tell him the location of the hospital until at least three more years of animal testing and seven more study papers have been completed.

 

Wow - I'm amazed you think this is a good example for your argument.

 

If I know where the hospital is, I'll tell him where it is. The ideals of science are all about gaining knowledge and making that knowledge avaliable.

...so if I weren't to tell him where the hospital is when I knew where it was, I'd be going against scientific principles.

To further clarify the point, NO scientific princpile would encourage me to lie. TO think otherwise is perposterous.

I'll let scientists come up with their own exuses why they lie, but the fact is it's got nothing to do with scientific ideals...

 

If I DON'T know where the hospital is, I'll tell him honestly I dont' know where it is. Wow - am I the wanker! Hopefully I'd be man enough to try and find out for him, using another one of sciences evil tools - the telephone

 

If I think I 'may' know, I'd make it clear I wasn't sure, and then I'd have to make a judgement call. Probably I'd assume I didn't really know where it was at first and try and find out.

...but if this guy WAS in real trouble, then I might decide I have to risk it and hope I recalled the location of the hospital correctly, and waste no more time trying to track it down conclusively.

 

 

I am against animal testing. I always have been. THere is NO scientific ideal that says 'Cut up and torture animals to find out stuff'.

That's a 'moral' desision individual scientists make, and scientific ideals CAN'T help them with it...

 

What animal testing has to do with this 'particular' senario of finding a hospital I suppose only you can make sense of (in a mind so able to change words and make hypocritical acusations, I'm sure bringing in irrelavent side issues as if they have any bearing is part of the course...).

 

and seven more study papers have been completed.

 

Jesus. OK - let me make this very clear for you...

 

If a scientist says to you 'I'm not sure whether with the current studies that 'x' is true', THIS indeed has to do with scientific ideals.

 

...but first of all, this statement describes NO COURSE OF CORRECT, RIGHT OR MORAL ACTION! To assume it does is your own idiocy, NOT the scientists.

Secondly, if he's lying, and he is sure 'x' is in fact true, and he's using the cover of 'more reserch needed' to justify his lie, then he's abusing his position as a scientist. But what the f**k has this got to do with scientific princpiles?! THe guy's lying not because a scientific princpile told him to, but because he's a lying f**khead!

 

If you then ask the scientist 'So considering you think you need more time to know for sure 'x' is true, what should I do'?

If the scientist were to give you that answer. he is no longer speaking as a scientist. He's just Mr.Joe Bloggs now, giving his own opinion. He can make a very informed opinion, granted. And if your not able to understand the ramifications of what 'x' means or it's consequences, then the scientists view may be all you have to go on. (But the scientist is NOT to blame for your lack of comprehension - only you are...)

...but deciding a course of action based on truth ISN'T science. That's all kinds of other stuff - on a global view, I would say mainly business, politics and religion...

 

Don't start getting flippant.

 

Wow - you wagged your finger at me! ...and in such an auhoritive manner too

 

So now you not happy with forcing different 'content' on what I say, your now happy to start enforcing a 'tone' on it too.

Not sure where you think you got the right to do all this, but let me fill you in on something - you DON'T have the right. You only think you do.

 

I thought the scientists were suppost to be the power-mongers here...

I guess there is some truth in the term 'takes one to know one'

 

I'm not leaving you any back doors to scuttle out from.

 

Ohhh. Handbags at dawn eh?! Heh - sounds like you think your trying to engage in some military campain or something. lol

Again, you think you have the right to change my words to fight your little 'imaginary war'. Why you think you have the right to do this is beyond me. (Well, it's getting clearer actually).

 

A few posts ago you accused me of misrepresenting you even though I actually made it clear I was only asking you IS this what you beleive?. i.e. I was only asking a question to clarify your position...

...now you think you have the right to mis-interperet practically EVERYTHING I say just so I dont' have a 'hole to scuttle out of'?!

 

Hypocrisy at it's most pure. I love it

 

There is a very big difference between 'hating' someone, and thinking someone is 'less worthy'

If I want to say 'hate', I'll say hate. If I mean 'less worthy', I'll say less worthy.

This is all very simple.

Just read my words and then reply to them. Ignore the little voices in your head changing the meaning of my words.

Thank you.

[Spider AL]

The biggest piece of b*ll**** you've written thus far.

Oh, that's mature. And I note you have no examples of "evil" in the bible to show us. The fact is that poor interpretation by fanatics of some of the bible's more obscure and subordinate passages has lead to evil being done, and the text itself (and certainly core christian principles) has little or nothing to do with that evil.

 

...I suggest you actually try reading it sometime before deciding what moral value it contains.

You obviously haven't, or you wouldn't have made such a dumb statement...

You're becoming increasingly abusive, I'd tone that down if I were you and try coming up with some actual rebuttals.

 

If I know where the hospital is, I'll tell him where it is. The ideals of science are all about gaining knowledge and making that knowledge avaliable.

...so if I weren't to tell him where the hospital is when I knew where it was, I'd be going against scientific principles.

Just as you'd be going against christian principles. But you would NOT be going against the culture of the scientific community, which is what we've been discussing, isn't it.

 

...but first of all, this statement describes NO COURSE OF CORRECT, RIGHT OR MORAL ACTION! To assume it does is your own idiocy, NOT the scientists.

IT doesn't have to directly describe morality in order to have a moral effect, or to offer a moral choice, my young fellow. Which was my whole point.

 

And I'm tiring of your abusive tone. "idiocy"? I hope you realise how childish you're sounding at the moment.

 

Just read my words and then reply to them. Ignore the little voices in your head changing the meaning of my words.

I quote things you've actually typed in, I don't alter a thing. Just because you're not clear on what you yourself want to say, don't blame it on me.