ant wrote:Dumb-dumb science worshiper: Science is the only thing we have that offers rational justification for beliefAnt: Was it science that provided rational justification for that belief?Dumb-dumb science worshiper: yes.. err, I mean noAnt: Then that belief is unjustified Dumb-dumb science worshiper: But science proves science! Ant: A circular proof is not valid reasoning Dumb-dumb science worshiper: You are anti-science!!! Ant: Have a nice day

Ant, looking at the above exchange, it seems to me there is more than a pinch of haughtiness on your part here in naming your interlocutor ‘dumb-dumb science worshiper’. What are examples of rationally justified belief? Astronomy provides the paradigm, with exact predictions based on laws of physics. The ongoing inductive confirmation, as night follows day, can be seen as a circular self-justification of science by science, at least for ordinary thinking. Similarly in other hard sciences. You are asking for theological axioms, a philosophical question that strikes many people as pointless.

Ant, looking at the above exchange, it seems to me there is more than a pinch of haughtiness on your part here in naming your interlocutor ‘dumb-dumb science worshiper’. What are examples of rationally justified belief? Astronomy provides the paradigm, with exact predictions based on laws of physics. The ongoing inductive confirmation, as night follows day, can be seen as a circular self-justification of science by science, at least for ordinary thinking. Similarly in other hard sciences. You are asking for theological axioms, a philosophical question that strikes many people as pointless.

I am not "anti-science" because I do not believe science is the only means of rational justification of belief.

Astronomy as a hard science works well when the desire for predictions of motion are needed.

I don't know about you, but I do not need to know the exact position of Pluto when I'm at work, at the gym, having dinner, or hanging out with loved ones.
Nor do I need astronomy to convince me whom to invest my time and love in, or who will get my vote in 2020. I will be able to rationalize and justify my decisions without the help of physics, mathematics, meteorology, astrology, biology, or even quantum mechanics.

.
.
"But the Solar System!" I protested.

"What the deuce is it to me?" he interrupted impatiently; "you say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work."
Sherlock Holmes
— Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Litwitlou wrote:.
.
"But the Solar System!" I protested.

"What the deuce is it to me?" he interrupted impatiently; "you say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work."
Sherlock Holmes
— Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

First Galileo, now this.

I truly belong among the giants.

I love the title of this thread.

ant wrote:
Science is used strictly for the purpose of expanding our knowledge..,for the sake of knowledge itself.

Technology creates and develops products for use.

Reproductive science has evolved to the point where there’s a wide range of exams to test fertility, some of which can gauge the status of your ovaries.
— Korin Miller, SELF, "What Does It Mean to Have a Diminished Ovarian Reserve?," 17 Nov. 2018

So this "wide range of exams" is technology, not science?

Space science or Astronomy is the study of everything in outer space.[16] This has sometimes been called astronomy, but recently astronomy has come to be regarded as a division of broader space science, which has grown to include other related fields,[17] such as studying issues related to space travel and space exploration (including space medicine), space archaeology[18] and science performed in outer space (see space research).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branches_of_scien ... l_sciences

So are the "other related fields" science or technology?

What about "applied science?" Wouldn't that simply be technology under your definition?

ant wrote:

Litwitlou wrote:."But the Solar System!" I protested. "What the deuce is it to me?" he interrupted impatiently; "you say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work." Sherlock Holmes — Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

First Galileo, now this. I truly belong among the giants.

Have you heard of 'damning with faint praise'? I would not be thrilled to be compared to a flat earther, or for that matter to the hotheaded insults that did so much to worsen Galileo's conflict with the church, where a more courteous approach might well have worked better for him.

The irony in Conan Doyle's famous statement is that Holmes' indefatigable focus on evidence presents him as a hero of the scientific world view, but this 'pennyworth' line completely undercuts his reputation for rationality.

Robert Tulip wrote:

ant wrote:

Litwitlou wrote:."But the Solar System!" I protested. "What the deuce is it to me?" he interrupted impatiently; "you say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work." Sherlock Holmes — Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

First Galileo, now this. I truly belong among the giants.

Have you heard of 'damning with faint praise'? I would not be thrilled to be compared to a flat earther, or for that matter to the hotheaded insults that did so much to worsen Galileo's conflict with the church, where a more courteous approach might well have worked better for him.

The irony in Conan Doyle's famous statement is that Holmes' indefatigable focus on evidence presents him as a hero of the scientific world view, but this 'pennyworth' line completely undercuts his reputation for rationality.

I was being facetious, Robert.

As in, you know, injecting a little levity into the conversation flow.

Too much starch in shirts can negativly impact healthy circulation.

Ahh, but there is evidence for the existence of gravity, while levity is completely subjective. It may not exist at all.