Science the end all and be all

[CM]

Science is based on human knowledge.
Human knowledge is not absolute.
Human knowledge can very easily be flawed.
Science this can never be absolute and can be flawed.
Following from that Science would never be able to explain everything concerning life or humanity as it is limited by human knowledge.
Thus there may be things out of the knowledge of science.

Logical? Any flaws? Comments?

[giles337]

Apart from the obvious problem of it being impossible to prove that human knowledge is absolute, it seems pretty sound... Why?

[C Elegans]

Sure, I wouldn't formulate myself exactly the way you did, but basically I agree with your conclusion and I also see no special flaws in your reasoning. I would like to add though that even if human knowledge was absolute, science is a discipline that is dealing with certain types of questions, which means that even if science was based on absolute knowledge, it would still not be able to explain issues that are outside of the scientific method and theory. A good example of issues outside of science is whether a god exists, art and moral issues. According to the scientific method, you must be able to make predictions and do hypothesis testing for something to be a scientific questions: that's why religion can not be a scientific question. We cannot test whether a god exists or not, we can only provide data (like in astrophysics and biology) that there is need for a god to explain how the universe and life came to be, but we can't exclude the possibility of the existance of a god since you cannot demonstrate that a phenomena does not exist. (Whether Santa Claus exists or not is not a scientific question either, for the same reason).

Like Giles I wonder, why?

[Magrus]

Originally Posted by CM

Science is based on human knowledge.
Human knowledge is not absolute.
Human knowledge can very easily be flawed.
Science this can never be absolute and can be flawed.
Following from that Science would never be able to explain everything concerning life or humanity as it is limited by human knowledge.
Thus there may be things out of the knowledge of science.

Logical? Any flaws? Comments?

Logical, very very logical. Science can provide theories for many things, but proving them is an entirely different matter. It's a bit like having faith in something wouldn't you say? Just in math and science rather than a higher power.

I'd view science as the religion of those who lack faith. *nods*

[CM]

I was having a discussion with an atheist who wished to prove that science replaces faith or religion - like magrus has stated - and that science was for the lack of a better word the natural evolution of society away from a dogma like religion.

[Magrus]

Originally Posted by CM

I was having a discussion with an atheist who wished to prove that science replaces faith or religion - like magrus has stated - and that science was for the lack of a better word the natural evolution of society away from a dogma like religion.

If you look back on history, that IS what happened. I'm no atheist, I happen to be a very religious person in my own way. However, early humans were extremely superstitious and believed most things were god sent and such. The quest to discover what caused everything rather than claiming it was divine intervention led to a good deal of the research done through science. Unless I'm totally off base here.

Granted, you had the natural technological improvements that people came up with to make life easier. Even those, in the beginning, many couldn't explain and thought them "magic" or the domain of a deity.

IMO science is simply a path humanity traveled down that provided a more grounded, stable view of how their reality worked. There are other paths to walk to look at the world around you, but science is the more widely spread one as it can all be written down and much of it proved in figures and drawings and such.

[frogus23]

I agree completely with your reasoning, but understand that it fails to make God's existence any more likely. The class of things which you have proved to exist 'those things unknown to science' is, in your argument apparently the same as 'those things unknown by humans'. But this class is by definition one about the contents of which we can know nothing, so suggesting that God exists in this class is arbitrary.

Unless you explain why human fallibility might effect science in a worse way than it effects knowledge of God, for example, or any other kind of knowledge, your argument does not really suggest any conclusions apart from 'not everything is known', which is a dead end.

@Magrus, in what way is science like a religion?

[Magrus]

Originally Posted by Frogus23

@Magrus, in what way is science like a religion?

Having a structured way of viewing your environment and the world around you.
Having strong beliefs in the way that you percieve things to be.
Having definate views on the why, how, what, when and where of your life.

For example, the sun.

At first, people thought it was a deity. That this deity gives life and life to this world. Eclipses were viewed as omens of pleasure/displeasure. When someone died of too much exposure to the sun, that person had angered said deity.

Now, science says it's an intensely hot sphere which is the center of our galaxy, holding all of the planets and such in it within it's gravitational pull. It also is assisting in giving heat, and light which is necessary for life to exist here on this planet. Those that die from over-exposure die from dehydration.

I'm not entirely sure how scientists came up with the information on the sun, what it's comprised of and what not. It's not something I've honestly cared about. It's there, and if it dissapears, well, I'll be cold and we'll most likely die.

However, the sun isn't exactly like the moon, where people can wander about on it's surface, collecting samples and analyzing them. Pictures can be taken yes, it can be watched from a distance yes. What can be done other than that, given the intense heat it provides? Is it not just a theory still of what the sun is comprised of and how it came to be? Just as the belief that the sun was a deity? No proof, just a concept and faith in the reasoning which led to it?

[Vicsun]

Have you not paid attention in your Theory of Knowledge classes, fas? For a brief re-cap: the only knowledge that is absolute, and can be considered infallible Truth (Truth that is eternal - if A is true it will always be true, independant - if A is true it will be true even if no one believes A to be true, and public - if A is true for one, A is true for all) can be found within a closed system such as Mathematics. The hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle (Euclidean geometry assumed) is always equal to the square-root of the sum of the squares of the two other sides.

Unlike math, science can't provide absolute truth, and doesn't claim to do so. Democritus and Leucippus, the first ones to conceptualize the existence of an atom, were ultimately proven wrong - an atom was, in fact, divisible. Then the Bohr model was proven false by Quantum Theory - electrons aren't particles, but instead a cloud of probability. Our current understanding will undoubtedly change, and the Quantum Theory model will be replaced. None of those models was true. As a matter of fact, every scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable.

Compare the above with the work of, say, Pythagoras. His theorem is to this day 100% true and remains unchanged.

[frogus23]

It seems to me that having a structured way of viewing things is not scientific or religious, it is what all humans do.

Scientists do not have to have strong beliefs in their perceptions being the true ones, and in fact scientists are better equipped if they do not have belief in their own perceptions. If scientists stuck to strong beliefs, science would no longer exist, because questioning and doubting is the essence of science.

The "why how what when and where of life" is quite a big conflagration also. Science does not seek to find out 'why' (except why one event causes another and so on, which is actually 'how?') science does not seek knowledge of purposes, reasons, motivations or destinies, it seeks knowledge of mechanisms and functions. On the other hand, religions are always concerned with 'why', hence moral, teleological and eschatological beliefs. This is why for Christians the importat questions about the genesis of the universe are those of God's purpose in his creation, not whether Eve was really made of a rib or not. And like I say, scientists would rarely claim certainty in their views, or they wouldn't be scientists.

Am I addressing a throwaway remark BTW?

[Magrus]

I, in my religion, don't bother asking "why" unless it happens to directly affect me in a situation I need an answer to. Seems like the approach scientists use to me.

Scientists DO hold strong beliefs though, otherwise they wouldn't have any reason to continue their work. They believe that the work they are doing is important, and that the methods in which they happen to be using can prove their theories right. Not always, but there's the chance it will work. If they didn't have these beliefs, they wouldn't be bothering with the work they were doing would they?

CE may not believe in deities and religion, but she DOES believe in the work she does on a daily basis in science. At least, thats my assumption based on her mentioning she enjoys her work. If she didn't enjoy it, logically, she wouldn't believe in it's worth. If she didn't believe that the work she did would garner results, and make a difference, it would be a hollow and empty pursuit would it not?

[Vicsun]

Originally Posted by Magrus

Having a structured way of viewing your environment and the world around you.
Having strong beliefs in the way that you percieve things to be.
Having definate views on the why, how, what, when and where of your life.

That would be the exact opposite of a scientist. Science is supposed to challenge current beliefs; it is anything but dogmatic.

For example, the sun.

At first, people thought it was a deity. That this deity gives life and life to this world. Eclipses were viewed as omens of pleasure/displeasure. When someone died of too much exposure to the sun, that person had angered said deity.

Now, science says it's an intensely hot sphere which is the center of our galaxy, holding all of the planets and such in it within it's gravitational pull. It also is assisting in giving heat, and light which is necessary for life to exist here on this planet. Those that die from over-exposure die from dehydration.

I'm not entirely sure how scientists came up with the information on the sun, what it's comprised of and what not. It's not something I've honestly cared about. It's there, and if it dissapears, well, I'll be cold and we'll most likely die.

However, the sun isn't exactly like the moon, where people can wander about on it's surface, collecting samples and analyzing them. Pictures can be taken yes, it can be watched from a distance yes. What can be done other than that, given the intense heat it provides? Is it not just a theory still of what the sun is comprised of and how it came to be? Just as the belief that the sun was a deity? No proof, just a concept and faith in the reasoning which led to it?

I highlighted the most relevant part of your post

Because you don't know the justification for our current knowledge about the sun, doesn't mean there is no justification; if you're interested you could take an astrophysics course and find on what grounds scientists believe the sun is a hot ball of hydrogen. All science is based on evidence we have somehow gathered; dogmatic belief with no justification, even if true, would not be science.

[Magrus]

Your missing my point. I'm speaking in a general sense. I'm not saying the all scientist believe x=y. I'm saying that they believe the avenues they are taking have a basis, which drives them to keep acting and moving along with those avenues of thought and work.

Whether scientists believe in the theory of relativity, or Quantum Theory or what not is irrevelant. What DOES matter, is each and every one DOES believe the theory's and methods they use CAN provide knowledge and answers. This is set in their minds and it drives them to keep thinking, and searching.

This is no different from a religious person questioning and searching for answers. The methods of doing so may be different, but the basis is the same. Both have books, both have undiscovered knowledge, both have questions which are in need of answering.

I view it as simply say, a fork in a path in front of human beliefs. One group decided to find answers here, another decided to find answers on another plane. The groundwork, the basic drive to seek answers for both groups was the same. The methods of doing so simply differ.

[C Elegans]

Originally Posted by Magrus

Having a structured way of viewing your environment and the world around you.
Having strong beliefs in the way that you percieve things to be.
Having definate views on the why, how, what, when and where of your life.

This is not science.

1. Having a structured way of viewing your environment and the world around you. As Frogus point out, every human being has so, it's just the exact content, the level of awareness of the content and the degree of flexibility and why your view change, that differs.
2. Having strong beliefs in the way that you percieve things to be. This is exactly the opposite of science, and what scientists do. Mind you, a scientist is also a person and may hold personal beliefs about a variety of things, ranging from politics, religion, art and sexual prefence, but personal beliefs and views are strictly kept from scientific views. Science is based around the idea that personal perception is worthless, that is why data is collected and analysed by impersonal methods and every observation must be independently replicated.
3. Having definate views on the why, how, what, when and where of your life. This is not science either, this is about how people view their lives. Again, our personal lives matters not to scientific questions. The aim of science is to describe and explain the mechanisms for, natural phenomena. The "why" we leave to the philosophers to ponder.

A fundamental question to ask when we investigate the basis of people's way of thinking is always: "what would make you change your mind?". If a scientist holds a certain view, s/he will always change her mind if objective evidence points in another direction and his or her first view was falsified. What will make a religious person stop believing in the existence of a god?

Originally Posted by Magrus

However, the sun isn't exactly like the moon, where people can wander about on it's surface, collecting samples and analyzing them. Pictures can be taken yes, it can be watched from a distance yes.

In what way does it give safer knowledge to walk around at the moon than to make observations with instruments? Do you believe human senses and human interpretation of their senses are infallible? You know they are not. People can feel and believe they feel or experience all sorts of things. There is no guarantee that what humans perceive with their senses is more true than what is registered by a spectrometer, for instance. On the contrary, empiric in vivo observation (experiencing things with your own senses), one of many methods to collect data, actually show a lot less reliability and validity than reconstruction and replication.

Is it not just a theory still of what the sun is comprised of and how it came to be? Just as the belief that the sun was a deity? No proof, just a concept and faith in the reasoning which led to it?

"Just a theory" is the argument the US creationist use when they argue evolution did not happen, and the flaw with this argument is that they fail to understand that like Vicsun and Frogus describes, everything is "just a theory", no absolute knowledge exists about the world (maths is a different thing sicne it defines its' own axioms). A scientific theory must fulfil specific criteria, whereas a belief, any belief, must not. There is a difference between justified and unjustified belief.

Religious "theories" (like god exists, Muhammed is the only profet of god, Christ was resurrected, etc) are not falsifiable. All scientific theories are falsifiable. Science is a self-revising process with an inbuilt system for revision. Religion aims to present everlasting "truths" about the world.

[C Elegans]

Originally Posted by Magrus

Scientists DO hold strong beliefs though, otherwise they wouldn't have any reason to continue their work. They believe that the work they are doing is important, and that the methods in which they happen to be using can prove their theories right. Not always, but there's the chance it will work. If they didn't have these beliefs, they wouldn't be bothering with the work they were doing would they?

We do believe that the scientific method is a good way of gaining useful knowledge, yes. But it differs totally from religion since the beliefs are at a different level.

Having faith in religious beliefs, means believing something without a systemic set of evidence. One of the major points in the big monotheistic religions is that you should believe without evidence - that is the very nature of faith.

In science, you don't have faith in anything. That would kill you as a scientist. You can hold scientific "beliefs", ie you can have a hypothesis about something, but a hypothesis is not just anything a human believe, a hypothesis must be formulated in a testable way and contain certain elements such as making predictions and being falsifiable. I have the hypothesis that the serotonin transporter plays a role in the mechanism of memory dysfunctions in patients with depression, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. This hypothesis I want to test, therefore I am spending this weekend writing grants application to fund my project. Previously I had the hypothesis that different variants of the coding region in the 5-HT1A gene would be of importance for regulations of amount of 5-HT1A receptor in brain. This hypothesis has been falsified, by us and by another lab. Thus I don't "believe" that anymore.

Again, you must ask what makes people change their beliefs, and what the aim of their beliefs are.

Scientific method has produced a lot of knowledge that has been useful and been applied to decrease suffering and improve human life. There is a lot of evidence that it is useful. I consider the invention of antibiotics one of the greatest discoveries humankind has ever done. (Or do you believe the relationship between penicilline/antibiotics and curing of infectious disease is a coincidence?)
I don't have any evidence that religious dogma have been useful for decreasing suffering and improving human life. So I like working with science. That's a choice I have made based on evidence that science is useful. Again, justified belief differs from faith.

Please Vicsun and Frogus take over this explanation, I must really work now so I can't post anything more tonight