Certainty

[Jayhawker Soule]

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."

Voltaire​

I found Science is not about certainty: a philosophy of physics to be thought-provoking, including ...

Science is not about certainty. Science is about finding the most reliable way of thinking, at the present level of knowledge. Science is extremely reliable; it's not certain. In fact, not only it's not certain, but it's the lack of certainty that grounds it. Scientific ideas are credible not because they are sure, but because they are the ones that have survived all the possible past critiques, and they are the most credible because they were put on the table for everybody's criticism.

The very expression 'scientifically proven' is a contradiction in terms. There is nothing that is scientifically proven. The core of science is the deep awareness that we have wrong ideas, we have prejudices. We have ingrained prejudices. In our conceptual structure for grasping reality there might be something not appropriate, something we may have to revise to understand better. So at any moment, we have a vision of reality that is effective, it's good, it's the best we have found so far. It's the most credible we have found so far, its mostly correct.

But at the same time it's not taken for certain, and any element of it is a priori open for revision. ...​

So, how do you feel about the following statement:

Science is not about certainty but, rather, about finding the most reliable way of thinking, at the present level of knowledge.​

 

[sun rise]

Science is not about certainty but, rather, about finding the most reliable way of thinking, at the present level of knowledge.

I agree. But also don't see how this thread fits in "general religious debates" unless there's a subtle point you're making.

 

[Revoltingest]

So, how do you feel about the following statement:

Science is not about certainty but, rather, about finding the most reliable way of thinking, at the present level of knowledge.​

I feel pretty comfortable with it.

 

[viole]

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."

Voltaire​

I found Science is not about certainty: a philosophy of physics to be thought-provoking, including ...

Science is not about certainty. Science is about finding the most reliable way of thinking, at the present level of knowledge. Science is extremely reliable; it's not certain. In fact, not only it's not certain, but it's the lack of certainty that grounds it. Scientific ideas are credible not because they are sure, but because they are the ones that have survived all the possible past critiques, and they are the most credible because they were put on the table for everybody's criticism.

The very expression 'scientifically proven' is a contradiction in terms. There is nothing that is scientifically proven. The core of science is the deep awareness that we have wrong ideas, we have prejudices. We have ingrained prejudices. In our conceptual structure for grasping reality there might be something not appropriate, something we may have to revise to understand better. So at any moment, we have a vision of reality that is effective, it's good, it's the best we have found so far. It's the most credible we have found so far, its mostly correct.

But at the same time it's not taken for certain, and any element of it is a priori open for revision. ...​

So, how do you feel about the following statement:

Science is not about certainty but, rather, about finding the most reliable way of thinking, at the present level of knowledge.​

That is correct. Knowledge is not equal certainty. So, everything we know might be totally wrong. But I think that this fact does not justify agnosticism about everything. It would be silly, I think, to claim agnosticism about the law of conservation of energy for instance, even if we cannot be absolutely sure that it is never violated.

For the same reason, I claim knowledge that God does not exist. Am I sure? Nope, but that does not justify being agnostic about His not existence. Ceteris paribus, that is, with the same (lack of) evidence, it would be like being agnostic about the existence of an invisible monster in my kitchen whose name is Bob. Or B-b, depending on the denomination

Ciao

- viole

 

[Sunstone]

"Science is not about certainty but, rather, about finding the most reliable way of thinking, at the present level of knowledge."

Thought provoking! Thanks so much for the link!

The more I think about it, the more I admire how well stated that is.

 

[idav]

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."

Voltaire​

I found Science is not about certainty: a philosophy of physics to be thought-provoking, including ...

Science is not about certainty. Science is about finding the most reliable way of thinking, at the present level of knowledge. Science is extremely reliable; it's not certain. In fact, not only it's not certain, but it's the lack of certainty that grounds it. Scientific ideas are credible not because they are sure, but because they are the ones that have survived all the possible past critiques, and they are the most credible because they were put on the table for everybody's criticism.

The very expression 'scientifically proven' is a contradiction in terms. There is nothing that is scientifically proven. The core of science is the deep awareness that we have wrong ideas, we have prejudices. We have ingrained prejudices. In our conceptual structure for grasping reality there might be something not appropriate, something we may have to revise to understand better. So at any moment, we have a vision of reality that is effective, it's good, it's the best we have found so far. It's the most credible we have found so far, its mostly correct.

But at the same time it's not taken for certain, and any element of it is a priori open for revision. ...​

So, how do you feel about the following statement:

Science is not about certainty but, rather, about finding the most reliable way of thinking, at the present level of knowledge.​

Science is about repeatability which increases certainty. For example I might be certain that dropping a pencil means it will fall to the floor and the more often it happens the more certain we are. Changing conditions doesn’t count, science uses the same conditions to repeat experiments. Anomalies means we are missing something.

 

[Skwim]

So, how do you feel about the following statement:

Science is not about certainty but, rather, about finding the most reliable way of thinking, at the present level of knowledge.​

Speaking of what science is, in short you're saying, science is about finding a way of thinking. Gotta disagree. I don't see its objective to be finding any such thing: "a way of thinking." I go along with the following definition that science is "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

.

 

[PureX]

So, how do you feel about the following statement:

Science is not about certainty but, rather, about finding the most reliable way of thinking, at the present level of knowledge.​

Science is about finding out what works, not what is true. And it is a grave human error that we so often conflate these two.

 

[Sunstone]

Science is about repeatability which increases certainty. For example I might be certain that dropping a pencil means it will fall to the floor and the more often it happens the more certain we are. Changing conditions doesn’t count, science uses the same conditions to repeat experiments. Anomalies means we are missing something.

Yet, there are strong logical and epistemological reasons why science will never achieve certainty.

“What distinguishes knowledge is not certainty but evidence.” ― Walter Kaufmann, Critique of Religion and Philosophy

 

[Mock Turtle]

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."

Voltaire​

I found Science is not about certainty: a philosophy of physics to be thought-provoking, including ...

Science is not about certainty. Science is about finding the most reliable way of thinking, at the present level of knowledge. Science is extremely reliable; it's not certain. In fact, not only it's not certain, but it's the lack of certainty that grounds it. Scientific ideas are credible not because they are sure, but because they are the ones that have survived all the possible past critiques, and they are the most credible because they were put on the table for everybody's criticism.

The very expression 'scientifically proven' is a contradiction in terms. There is nothing that is scientifically proven. The core of science is the deep awareness that we have wrong ideas, we have prejudices. We have ingrained prejudices. In our conceptual structure for grasping reality there might be something not appropriate, something we may have to revise to understand better. So at any moment, we have a vision of reality that is effective, it's good, it's the best we have found so far. It's the most credible we have found so far, its mostly correct.

But at the same time it's not taken for certain, and any element of it is a priori open for revision. ...​

So, how do you feel about the following statement:

Science is not about certainty but, rather, about finding the most reliable way of thinking, at the present level of knowledge.​

That's exactly how I see science - an asymptotic approach to our understanding - that is, that we might never achieve full knowledge in any particular area - but it is the best approach available. As the soldiers often get told, when asking WHY? (in the trenches) - nobody else but us here - where 'us' is science.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I agree. But also don't see how this thread fits in "general religious debates" unless there's a subtle point you're making.

That's me: I'm pretty much known in the back rooms of RF elite as the Prince of Subtlety!

 

[Sunstone]

That's me: I'm pretty much known in the back rooms of RF elite as the Prince of Subtlety!

"Subtlety" and on some days, a few other choice words, mind you!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Science is about repeatability which increases certainty.

... or, at the very least, 'informs' the illusion of certainty.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Science is about finding out what works, not what is true.

"Works" in what sense? How does this science-as-utlility theory address cosmology and paleontology?

 

[PureX]

"Works" in what sense? How does this science-as-utlility theory address cosmology and paleontology?

"Works" in that it increases our ability to control our environment, either actually or theoretically. Humans conflate understanding with control. We call it "truth-seeking", but we have no idea what 'the truth' of anything is. And mostly, we don't care, so long as we can manipulate reality to our own advantage. Or at least believe that we can.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"Works" in what sense? How does this science-as-utlility theory address cosmology and paleontology?

"Works" in that it increases our ability to control our environment, either actually or theoretically. Humans conflate understanding with control. We call it "truth-seeking", but we have no idea what 'the truth' of anything is. And mostly, we don't care, so long as we can manipulate reality to our own advantage. Or at least believe that we can.

Please answer my second question.

 

[syo]

finding the most reliable way of thinking,

that's religion's and philosophy's task, as well.

 

[PureX]

Please answer my second question.

These help us create the illusion that we understand the scope and history of our 'world', and can therefor control it, or control ourselves in relation to it, to our own advantage.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

These help us create the illusion that we understand the scope and history of our 'world', and can therefor control it, or control ourselves in relation to it, to our own advantage.

So by "works" you meant "helps us create the illusion that we understand."

Thanks for sharing ...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

that's religion's and philosophy's task, as well.

<yawn>

never mind​

</yawn>