science as a religion

[leibowde84]

Science is not a religion but some people treat it like a religion. That scientists can be treated as infallible authority figures has already been shown by Milgram experiment. Everything you are afraid to question becomes your religion. On another forum, some guy wrote "I believe in evolution." So now it's something to believe in? Or take for instance Dawkins' memetics, which turns out to be total nonsense when you look deeper into it, yet it's parroted by many people without giving it the second thought, in spite of the fact that Dawkins, himself, wasn't and still isn't so sure of his hypothesis.

It's all the matter of approach. There are things scientists don't know, yet they sometimes pretend to the general public they do know. For example, one group of scientists speaks ex cathedra about global warming and another group speaks also ex cathedra we are heading for another Ice Age. Who is correct? Time will tell. Still people want to think they have the right answers to well... everything.

There are always going to be bad actors in any practice. Science is no different. But, science itself is pure in that it recognizes no authorities or absolutes. Scientists, for the most part, constantly question their own theories actually trying to disprove them. They also let the evidence take them wherever it may lead, rather than accepting something as true and trying to fit the evidence in with that assumption.

As for "Global Warming", your point seems like a straw-man. It's "Climate Change", and "changes" in either direction still would qualify. And, it's great that scientists disagree about the future, as they should. They need to keep perfecting their theories by questioning them.

 

[leibowde84]

I don't like any be all, end all philosophies, actually, scientism included. It's clear that some will never be able to differentiate between "science" and "scientism", a problem I'd hoped was confined to reddit. I don't have time for this.

If you are accusing me of adhering to "scientism", I would have to think the same about you. But, I'm all ears if you can show me why my confidence in the scientific method is "excessive" ... something that is required for "scientism".

 

[leibowde84]

The movie is cool. I suppose I see these folks as inventors. A special breed of scientist maybe. They see a problem and they are driven to fix it.

I'm an engineer, I fix problems. I guess I don't classify that as necessarily being a scientist.

How so? Do you not use the following in your engineering work?

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/
noun

1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

 

[Augustus]

I suppose I see these folks as inventors. A special breed of scientist maybe. They see a problem and they are driven to fix it.

I'm an engineer, I fix problems. I guess I don't classify that as necessarily being a scientist.

I agree with this.

The organised practice of formal sciences has contributed far less than 'people doing stuff'. Penicillin even came about from someone not doing stuff (cleaning up his lab).

Lots of things are invented/improved by people fiddling about with stuff and making discoveries based on reason, experience, rules of thumb, luck, trial and error, inspiration, following hunches, etc.

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

The screen on one of my laptops goes a bit funny sometimes, by fiddling with it and following hunches I learned I can fix it by closing the lid and opening it to a specific angle. Is this science?

Because 'science' is a vague concept, many people seem to overrate the contribution of the formal, academic sciences, and underestimate the contribution of 'people doing stuff'.

 

[leibowde84]

The screen on one of my laptops goes a bit funny sometimes, by fiddling with it and following hunches I learned I can fix it by closing the lid and opening it to a specific angle. Is this science?

Of course.

 

[jonathan180iq]

The screen on one of my laptops goes a bit funny sometimes, by fiddling with it and following hunches I learned I can fix it by closing the lid and opening it to a specific angle. Is this science?

Yes, it is.

You realized a problem with your screen.
Within a matter of seconds, you internally posited a hypothesis about what would fix your screen. Less than a second or two later, probably, you formulated a series of tests to both test your hypothesis and simultaneously fix your little problem. You discarded all the tests of angles that did not work and you accepted the test of an angle that did... After that was all said and done and your screen was operational again you probably internalized a few conclusions from your test results and realized that there must be a faulty connection somewhere behind the monitor's surface, most likely at the hinge between the screen and the keyboard.

Being the pragmatist that you are, I'm going to assume that you just solve the screen issue when it pops up, but the conclusions of your last study still lead to a query which can form the basis of your new hypothesis, should you choose to pursue it. All you have to do is test the new hypothesis that there is a bad connection between the screen and the keyboard and you will have scientifically resolved the problem of your blinky screen

In reality, it probably went something like this:

"Aw crap my screen went out... I guess I'll just close the laptop for now."
"Wait, what the heck was that!?"

*Opens laptop slightly

"Oh, that's weird. It works at this angle but not at this one..."
"There we go - it's not ideal but at least it works."

*Continues to type fervently on Religiousforums.

 

[Thief]

Reducing science to knee jerk reaction.....is not science

 

[jonathan180iq]

Reducing science to knee jerk reaction.....is not science

There are a lot of formal scientific words that add a sense of ethereal wonder and academic posturing to the root of what scientific testing essentially boils down to... trial and error.

 

[Thief]

There are a lot of formal scientific words that add a sense of ethereal wonder and academic posturing to the root of what scientific testing essentially boils down to... trial and error.

it needs to be structured.

 

[jonathan180iq]

it needs to be structured.

Why?

Organization certainly helps, but do you know how many scientific discoveries were made purely by accident or mishap?

 

[Quintessence]

Why?

Organization certainly helps, but do you know how many scientific discoveries were made purely by accident or mishap?

He's actually right, depending on what he meant by "structure." If the trial-and-error has not been structured - as in if you don't standardize your metrics and have proper controls and the like - you have a rubbish dataset and can't do anything with it at all.

 

[1137]

If you are accusing me of adhering to "scientism", I would have to think the same about you. But, I'm all ears if you can show me why my confidence in the scientific method is "excessive" ... something that is required for "scientism".

I didn't say anything about your beliefs, I said some will never see the difference between science and scientism.I'd also love to hear how I follow scientism, I could use a laugh.

Bravo though, really.

 

[leibowde84]

I didn't say anything about your beliefs, I said some will never see the difference between science and scientism.I'd also love to hear how I follow scientism, I could use a laugh.

Bravo though, really.

Oh, my mistake. Thought you were accusing me of it. And, I wasn't accusing you of adhering to scientism, just that, if you were accusing me of it, then it would show a lack of understanding of the difference between science and scientism, as you said.

 

[Nakosis]

How so? Do you not use the following in your engineering work?

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/
noun

1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Sure I can see that, it's just not what I normally think about it that way. There's the folks that make the discoveries then there are the "scientists" that come along after the discoveries are made that do the research and validation and add to the body of knowledge about what has been discovered. This later process is much more systematic for validation purposes.

This way of looking at it, pretty much anyone who solves a problem can be seen as a scientist. Just innovative folks who may or may not use a systematic approach. If science is a matter of trial and error and finding what works, "prayer" works for some folks, according to them. A scientist comes along to isolate and validate what is actually going on.

There is the experimental scientist vs the theoretical scientist. The experimental scientists make the discoveries like for example the folks in the video and the theoretical scientist who takes the discoveries, does the research, validation and creates new theories based on the research.

 

[Thief]

Why?

Organization certainly helps, but do you know how many scientific discoveries were made purely by accident or mishap?

I am not willing to confuse mishap with science.

Or perhaps you might consider the big bang.....an accident?!!!!!!!
hehehehehehe

 

[paarsurrey]

To claim that, assuming science is a religion (which, imho, is untrue), science is nothing less than the most useful religion humankind has ever witnessed, is simply errogant. And, for those who disagree with this, I implore you to check out the following site out with an opened, unassuming mind.

Sciencecanchangetheworld.org

Science can change the world in physical sense but it cannot replace religion.

 

[leibowde84]

Science can change the world in physical sense but it cannot replace religion.

Why not? How can you put a limit on future discoveries?

 

[jonathan180iq]

He's actually right, depending on what he meant by "structure." If the trial-and-error has not been structured - as in if you don't standardize your metrics and have proper controls and the like - you have a rubbish dataset and can't do anything with it at all.

Absolutely - that's not what I'm saying.

Formal science certainly has to have a set of boundaries of an agreed upon framework through which to operate so there are standards.
But that doesn't change the fact that "people doing stuff" as Augustus so eloquently put it, can still be "science".

We can all take a scientific approach to solving problems, regardless of whether or not we are in a lab or get paid grant money to wear white coats and cook our coffee in beakers. That was the whole point of the exchange.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I am not willing to confuse mishap with science.

The testing of variables is, literally, just a fancy way to say "trial and error."
You take one variable, test it against a standard, and see what the outcome is. Then you test another variable over and over and over again until you find whatever it is that works or whatever you were looking for, or you interpret net information that you didn't foresee. This is precisely how vaccinations are made and how almost all problems are solved... It can be "dirty" and still be "science."

Or perhaps you might consider the big bang.....an accident?!!!!!!!
hehehehehehe

 

[Thief]

not buying it.
sloppy experiments are difficult to support.

Somewhere, I heard it said....
Insanity is repeating the same effort and expecting a better result.