What do you believe about science?

MadArchitect

I don't intend to make an argument out of this, but I am interested in how most BookTalk contributors would reaspond. Please choose the predicate that best reflects your view.

I believe science...

Results (total votes = 8):


is a predominantly true explanation of the natural world.	3 / 37.5%

is a provisional explanation; ie. not objectively true, but useful nonetheless.	2 / 25.0%

currently provides a provisional explanation, but will eventually provide an objectively true explanation.	0 / 0.0%

is predominantly false.	0 / 0.0%

is something other than the options accounted for above. (If so, please explain.)	3 / 37.5%

Chris OConnor

Science cannot be "true" or "false" or "right" or wrong." Science isn't a static anything. Science is a journey or mission where truth is the destination. Sometimes along the way we wander down the wrong path only to backtrack, once we realize we've made a mistake, and get back onto the right road.

Science is a methodology where we apply established systems, tools or techniques for acquiring knowledge, and then all knowledge acquired is labeled not as a certainty, but as a probability. Science is open-ended. Invalidate a theory and it will be discarded. But if nobody can prove an idea wrong or logically inconsistent that idea is assigned more and more weight, depending on all sorts of other factors.

Mr. Pessimistic

Well said Chris!

Mr. P.

I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana Boditharta (former booktalk troll)

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

What is all this shit about Angels? Have you heard this? 3 out of 4 people believe in Angels. Are you F****** STUPID? Has everybody lost their mind? - George Carlin

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Chris OConnor

This is a really great question, Mad. My wife is standing here with me and she loved the thread.

Chris OConnor

So what is your opinion, Mad?

Dissident Heart

Science is a darned useful way to get things done. It doesn't tell us what we should do, but it sure as hell helps us do what we want. Just because it helps us do what we want, doesn't mean it always gets us to do what we need. Science is actually very little, perhaps nothing, until the Scientist gets involved. Once the Scientist gets involved, well, then things get a little messy: sometimes terribly messy, even horribly destructive and downright cataclysmic. Still, even with the foibles and vanity of the Scientist, occasionally great things do get done: things that matter in ways that really improve life...where need meets want and ought meets is.

MadArchitect

Chris: So what is your opinion, Mad?

My vote was for #2: Science is a provisional answer; not objectively true, but useful nonetheless. My full belief might waver from that a little, but I didn't think it wavered enough to justify bothering with the 5th option.

I'm interested in your answer, though, Chris. I promise not to turn it into an argument if you'd do me the favor of fielding a few questions. I'm not questioning your belief; I'm just a little surprised at your answer.

Science cannot be "true" or "false" or "right" or wrong." Science isn't a static anything. Science is a journey or mission where truth is the destination.

Does that differ significantly from the 3rd answer? It looks to me like you're saying that science provides provisional answers, and that science aims towards truth, but I'm not clear on whether you think that science will ever arrive at that destination.

riverc0il

The options for the poll seem unfit for the question. Actually, the question itself is slightly odd. Belief has nothing to do with science and science is neither true nor false. Chris had a really nice response earlier in the thread. Science is a method that allows fallible and error prone creatures to rigorously, methodically, quantitatively, and analytically test the world around us. It approaches testing from the perspective of always challenging previously believed theories and if the theories do not fail the test, then they have yet to be proven incorrect. Nothing could ever be proven 100% correct unless we could rule out any possible inconsistency. Science labels and measures gravity. Gravity is most certainly something that occurs in the natural world. Is gravity then true because science proved it? This type of reasoning through science just becomes a silly semantical game. Science is a method and set of tools to measure and test the world. We then apply the knowledge gained from science to various applications. Question of "believing" in science just seems without a point. The way we measure something (for example, periodic table) is certainly not an absolute but rather how we have labeled and identified natural phenomenon... if that is what you are asking.

Chris OConnor

Mad, my problem with the third choice was in the second clause of the sentence.

Quote:
currently provides a provisional explanation, but will eventually provide an objectively true explanation

The conclusions we form through the application of science are ALWAYS provisional. True, we are striving to know things with absolute certainty, but we really can only assign a level of probability to these things we believe we know.

This is why I respect science and scientists so much more than faith and theists. Science admits to ignorance, but declares a lust for knowledge. The faithul say knowledge is irrelevant and questioning dogma is disgraceful. What a sham.

Edited by: Chris OConnor at: 5/16/07 12:48 am

MadArchitect

Chris OConnor: Mad, my problem with the third choice was in the second clause of the sentence.

Refresh my memory: you chose the second choice? Or the fifth?

The conclusions we form through the application of science are ALWAYS provisional. True, we are striving to know things with absolute certainty, but we really can only assign a level of probability to these things we believe we know.

I hope you don't mind if I ask another question in regards to your answer. If the answers are always provisional, and we can never count them as absolutely true, nor know the full range of possible answers, then what's our foundation for assigning them a level of probability?

The reason I ask is that, it seems to me that you need to have a fairly solid knowledge of the range of possible answers in order to determine the probability of any given answer. Let me try to illustrate.

When we calculate probability numerically, we present it as a ratio of attempts to possibilities. So if you want to present the probability of turning up the number six on a single roll of a die, you'd present it as 1 in 6. One attempt (roll); six sides (possibilities).

I'm not sure how you could do that with a totally provisional answer. Granted, my knowledge of mathematics is fairly basic. Maybe something about scientific method allows for a broad statement (if not a precise calculation) or probability? Or maybe you mean probability in another way? Or maybe the idea you're trying to convey would be better expressed with a word other than "probability"?

I'm not trying to catch you in any sort of trap. I'm just wondering about your instroduction of the word probability and what it entails for the philosophy of science.

Edited by: MadArchitect at: 5/17/07 3:44 pm

George Ricker

I opted for option 5.

I think science is more about an approach than an end result. It's always a work in progress and no one ever gets the last word, so, in that sense, it's provisional.

It does lead us to such truths (all my truths start with a small "t") as we can know at any given time, but all of science's truths, as Chris notes, are estimates of probability based on current information and as the information changes, so will the probabilities, in all probability. ::204

Science seems to work pretty well. I have a high degree of rational confidence in both the process and the results. But I don't think of my opinion of science as a matter of "belief."

George

"Godlessness is not about denying the existence of nonsensical beings. It is the starting point for living life without them."

Godless in America by George A. Ricker

Interbane · Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 9:52 pm Post subject:

I enjoy this thought thread. My idea of science is very close to your Chris, but with a slight variation. Instead of journeying to the truth, science journeys away from what isn't true, in hopes of increasing knowledge about the world. Very similar, but I think the difference is critical.

Science cannot say something is true. It can only say what isn't true. Much like a sculptor who uses clay. He can never create a perfect replica of a human, but he can chisel away what isn't a human until what is left is as close a replica as possible.

Grim · Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:39 pm Post subject:

http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/science/index.html

Science is a language that speaks to itself, and those who care to listen. My favorite episode in this series is probably the James Lovelock interview because I am a fan of his ideology and have read several of his books.

ZachSylvanus · Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:52 pm Post subject:

Ugh, I'm really not a fan of Lovelock and his Gaia hypothesis.

But yeah, Science is a tool we can use to test ideas about the universe, and separate out false ideas from those that may be more true. You don't believe in a tool, you use it.

Dissident Heart · Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 3:03 pm Post subject:

Zach: Science is a tool we can use to test ideas about the universe, and separate out false ideas from those that may be more true. You don't believe in a tool, you use it.

But why you use the tool, and to what end...these answers are more than scientific and largely a matter of, well, belief. Choosing to utilize psychology to train prison guards in using better, more efficient, more effective torture techniques...which requires a good deal of scientific acumen...is one way illustrate my point. Following which political agenda, economic gain, personal acclaim, professional status, psychological neuroses...for whom is the scientific enterprise meant and for what purpose or cause?

Science is essential in helping us weed out bad hypothesis and poor theories about the world around and within us...but it is also a tool used to build and construct these worlds...as well as dismantle and destroy.


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	ADVERTISE	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CHAT	CONTACT