science as a religion

[Ouroboros]

Science will never reach mythology, fantasy or imagination. all parts of reality

There are myths in science. Stories told that aren't true, but still are told because they're fun to hear. Example: Newton and the apple.

Fantasy and imagination is a cornerstone to science, research, engineering, math, and so on. Most of the time, research starts with a though of the "what if..." kind. It requires fantasy and imagination to do that. Example: Einstein and relativity.

 

[outhouse]

There are myths in science. Stories told that aren't true, but still are told because they're fun to hear. Example: Newton and the apple.

Fantasy and imagination is a cornerstone to science, research, engineering, math, and so on. Most of the time, research starts with a though of the "what if..." kind. It requires fantasy and imagination to do that. Example: Einstein and relativity.

Understood but its all in the context as you know.

Many things are imagined before they are brought to observation.

 

[outhouse]

Secondly, we are not discussing religion

Actually, you replied to a reply that was solely addressing religions attempt to fill in gaps of reality that science does not address.


Not sure what you think you were jumping into, but you did.

 

[Ouroboros]

Understood but its all in the context as you know.

Many things are imagined before they are brought to observation.

Yes, but it starts with imagination and creativity. And we do have myths in science. One is that we tend to think that we can understand everything through reductionism alone. More and more we're realizing that complex systems can't be just reduced to be understood.

We also have arbitrary symbolism to label things, even when the terms themselves not properly correspond to what they describe. Example: QCD, quantum chromodynamics. There's no colors really involved, but it's a useful way of using "colors" to describe the forces. Same thing with the "spin" on quarks.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Actually, you replied to a reply that was solely addressing religions attempt to fill in gaps of reality that science does not address.


Not sure what you think you were jumping into, but you did.

This will be my last reply to you. I replied to a discrete claim about whether science can exhaustively understand reality, no more, no less. This does not draw me into any wider discussion about replacing science with religion, as was clearly understood by the poster I was having the original discussion with when he replied to me. This is how message board discussions work. It is quite possible to discretely discuss someone's post without being drawn into defending all that the side opposing them has said. This is yet more sophistry and just plain idiocy on your part, and perhaps a little dishonest (as you clearly clutching at straws to excuse your lack of a grasp of the discussion you entered into to).

Anyway, this will be the last time I discuss anything with you.

 

[outhouse]

Yes, but it starts with imagination and creativity. And we do have myths in science. One is that we tend to think that we can understand everything through reductionism alone. More and more we're realizing that complex systems can't be just reduced to be understood.

We also have arbitrary symbolism to label things, even when the terms themselves not properly correspond to what they describe. Example: QCD, quantum chromodynamics. There's no colors really involved, but it's a useful way of using "colors" to describe the forces. Same thing with the "spin" on quarks.

My point for myth was not its lack of.

Science cannot prove known biblical mythology true, was the context I used.

 

[outhouse]

This will my last reply to you

You said that once already, do you know how the word credibility is defined?

Use sources and you wont walk into deep water.

. I replied to a discrete claim about whether science can exhaustively understand reality, no more, no less

Glad you admit talking the OP out of context. His statement was in context to a religious claim.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

You are ignoring content by this member...........

 

[leibowde84]

Didn't you say that it would be foolish to rule out science being able to understand all reality? Well, we already know it can't. It relies on philosophy. Unless we just extend the meaning of the term science, and make the claim it explains all trivial, it cannot therefore explain all reality.

The below is how science is defined (for the purposes of this thread, at least). Where do you get the absolute limitations you speak of from the meaning of "science"?

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.

 

[paarsurrey]

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

By definition science deals in the physical, so its being physical limits its boundaries.
Regards

 

[leibowde84]

By definition science deals in the physical, so its being physical limits its boundaries.
Regards

This is blatantly false. What about quantum physics, theoretical physics, metaphysical sciences, etc.?!

http://www.metaphysics-for-life.com/metaphysical-science.html

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

The below is how science is defined (for the purposes of this thread, at least). Where do you get the absolute limitations you speak of from the meaning of "science"?

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.

This definition is vague. Does it stretch science to include the relevant parts of a logic, mathematics, philosophy of nature, metaphysics, etc.? This would seem to make the implicit scientism of your position trivial - science might then explain all, but it wouldn't simply be what is normally meant by science or natural science.

Science relies on logic, mathematics, and philosophy in order to be able to reason, understand, interpret, and categorise its findings. I spoke very briefly about some of the ways above (aside from logic and maths, there is the understanding of universals science speaks of like quarks or electrons and how they exist and are instantiated, understanding causality, realism vs antirealism in science, and so on). Science is therefore already absolutely limited.

 

[outhouse]

Science is therefore already absolutely limited.

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


It does not claim it is not limited.

 

[leibowde84]

This definition is vague. Does it stretch science to include the relevant parts of a logic, mathematics, philosophy of nature, metaphysics, etc.? This would seem to make the implicit scientism of your position trivial - science might then explain all, but it wouldn't simply be what is normally meant by science or natural science.

Science relies on logic, mathematics, and philosophy in order to be able to reason, understand, interpret, and categorise its findings. I spoke very briefly about some of the ways above (aside from logic and maths, there is the understanding of universals science speaks of like quarks or electrons and how they exist and are instantiated, understanding causality, realism vs antirealism in science, and so on). Science is therefore already absolutely limited.

Science is the process of using experimentation (including mathematics and "thought experiments") to figure out how reality works. It certainly isn't limited to people working in labs or anything like that. Just think about theoretical physicists.

And, I did not make this definition up. It is the common meaning of the word, used in pretty much all the dictionaries I looked at. If you use a different, more specific meaning, that is fine, but that is on you, as this is the most commonly used meaning of the term. If you are using another meaning, please provide it.

 

[paarsurrey]

This is blatantly false. What about quantum physics, theoretical physics, metaphysical sciences, etc.?!

http://www.metaphysics-for-life.com/metaphysical-science.html

"Prior to the modern history of science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of metaphysics known as natural philosophy. Originally, the term "science" (Latinscientia) simply meant "knowledge". The scientific method, however, transformed natural philosophy into an empiricalactivity deriving from experiment unlike the rest of philosophy. By the end of the 18th century, it had begun to be called "science" to distinguish it from philosophy. Thereafter, metaphysics denoted philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence.[6] Some philosophers of science, such as the neo-positivists, say that natural science rejects the study of metaphysics, while other philosophers of science strongly disagree."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

 

[leibowde84]

"Prior to the modern history of science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of metaphysics known as natural philosophy. Originally, the term "science" (Latinscientia) simply meant "knowledge". The scientific method, however, transformed natural philosophy into an empiricalactivity deriving from experiment unlike the rest of philosophy. By the end of the 18th century, it had begun to be called "science" to distinguish it from philosophy. Thereafter, metaphysics denoted philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence.[6] Some philosophers of science, such as the neo-positivists, say that natural science rejects the study of metaphysics, while other philosophers of science strongly disagree."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

So, you are saying that the neo-positivists' argument is correct and the "other philosophers" are all wrong? Can you support this? Because, in your cited passage, it clearly is indicated that this is merely an opinion on the subject.

 

[paarsurrey]

So, you are saying that the neo-positivists' argument is correct and the "other philosophers" are all wrong? Can you support this? Because, in your cited passage, it clearly is indicated that this is merely an opinion on the subject.

The other one is also just an opinion.
Regards

 

[leibowde84]

The other one is also just an opinion.
Regards

So, you can't support your opinion?

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Science is the process of using experimentation (including mathematics and "thought experiments") to figure out how reality works. It certainly isn't limited to people working in labs or anything like that. Just think about theoretical physicists.

And, I did not make this definition up. It is the common meaning of the word, used in pretty much all the dictionaries I looked at. If you use a different, more specific meaning, that is fine, but that is on you, as this is the most commonly used meaning of the term. If you are using another meaning, please provide it.

Science, or natural science, is generally considered to be about the quantifiable and measurable empirical world. Maths and certainly logic are generally outside science. That is why it is generally referred to as Maths and Science, and logic is a part of philosophy departments.

Of course, mathematics makes ample use of maths and logic, but science is itself separate. One can stretch the definition of science to include mathematics and logic, but then this somewhat triavialises any scientism one is pushing.

Also, I did mention that science relies on more than maths and logic narrowly defined. It relies on philosophy of nature, understandings of causality, philosophy of science, and so on.

 

[leibowde84]

Science, or natural science, is generally considered to be about the quantifiable and measurable empirical world. Maths and certainly logic are generally outside science. That is why it is generally referred to as Maths and Science, and logic is a part of philosophy departments.

Of course, mathematics makes ample use of maths and logic, but science is itself separate. One can stretch the definition of science to include mathematics and logic, but then this somewhat triavialises any scientism one is pushing.

Also, I did mention that science relies on more than maths and logic narrowly defined. It relies on philosophy of nature, understandings of causality, philosophy of science, and so on.

I'm sorry, but you could not be more wrong. Scientists rely on mathematics and vice versa constantly. Again, I point to the fact that the most well known scientists were theoretical physicists.