Science as natural and the rest as a human construct.

[mikkel_the_dane]

Here is one version of how to do that; i.e to combine the 2.

I will now as a human construct claim that I can eliminate all human constructs and turn everything into natural as science. You don't understand reality at all if you don't understand reality as me and this is not a human construct. This is how science works, because I say so as a human construct.

I am as a "we" universal and can speak for all humans and that "we" is not a human construct, because I say so as a human construct.

As long as I catch someone for all of reality doing that with: We, with science... I will point out that we are playing human constructs of what we all ought to do. And that "what we all ought to do" is apparently a human construct, regardless of you claiming science, religion, philosophy or what not.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, there is an 'ought to', 'dharma', rules of the society. Other than that, there is none.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, there is an 'ought to', 'dharma', rules of the society. Other than that, there is none.

There is no single universal "the society". That is "group-thinking" at worst and a half-truth at best.
We are individuals, who rely in part of groups, but we are still in part individuals.
There is no single universal "we".

 

[exchemist]

Here is one version of how to do that; i.e to combine the 2.

I will now as a human construct claim that I can eliminate all human constructs and turn everything into natural as science. You don't understand reality at all if you don't understand reality as me and this is not a human construct. This is how science works, because I say so as a human construct.

I am as a "we" universal and can speak for all humans and that "we" is not a human construct, because I say so as a human construct.

As long as I catch someone for all of reality doing that with: We, with science... I will point out that we are playing human constructs of what we all ought to do. And that "what we all ought to do" is apparently a human construct, regardless of you claiming science, religion, philosophy or what not.

Regards
Mikkel

Yes but this is something of a straw man, it seems to me.

Science after all, is in the business of making predictive models of the physical world, not of making claims of ultimate truth. Those populist scientists (like de Grasse Tyson?) who skate over this point are doing science and their audiences a grave disservice.

One of the problems I continually see on forums like this is religious people thinking, wrongly, that science makes claims of final and absolute truth for its models. In science all models (i.e. the theories) are provisional only. The only real "facts", so to speak, are the observations of nature. Even these are recognised to be only as solid as experimental reproducibility can make them, which is never 100%.

So we do implicitly recognise, at every stage in the scientific method, the limitations of human subjectivity and of only partial access to what nature has to tell us. An honest and thoughtful exponent of science to the public would make this clear.

When we actually work with the models of science, day to day, we of course do not continually keep reciting these caveats: we treat the theories as facts - until we stumble on something that calls them into question. But the caveats are always there, in the background.

So yes, absolutely, the theories of science are indeed human constructs, developed to explain and predict how nature seems to behave. But scientists must believe, I think, that there is an actual, objective reality "out there" to model. If there were not, the theories would not work as well as they do.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes but this is something of a straw man, it seems to me.

Science after all, is in the business of making predictive models of the physical world, not of making claims of ultimate truth. Those populist scientists (like de Grasse Tyson?) who skate over this point are doing science and their audiences a grave disservice.

One of the problems I continually see on forums like this is religious people thinking, wrongly, that science makes claims of final and absolute truth for its models. In science all models (i.e. the theories) are provisional only. The only real "facts", so to speak, are the observations of nature. Even these are recognised to be only as solid as experimental reproducibility can make them, which is never 100%.

So we do implicitly recognise, at every stage in the scientific method, the limitations of human subjectivity and of only partial access to what nature has to tell us. An honest and thoughtful exponent of science to the public would make this clear.

When we actually work with the models of science, day to day, we of course do not continually keep reciting these caveats: we treat the theories as facts - until we stumble on something that calls them into question. But the caveats are always there, in the background.

So yes, absolutely, the theories of science are indeed human constructs, developed to explain and predict how nature seems to behave. But scientists must believe, I think, that there is an actual, objective reality "out there" to model. If there were not, the theories would not work as well as they do.

Yeah, we don't disagree.
I disagree with those who turn science into philosophical naturalism and what not.
You don't do that, others do that.

 

[cladking]

There is certainly a reality that transcends our ability to see it. We can probe it but we change it with our probes and interpretations.

We must try to see reality in its own terms even if it means bending to it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is certainly a reality that transcends our ability to see it. We can probe it but we change it with our probes and interpretations.

We must try to see reality in its own terms even if it means bending to it.

Yes, naive empiricism is not all there is to reality.

 

[exchemist]

Yeah, we don't disagree.
I disagree with those who turn science into philosophical naturalism and what not.
You don't do that, others do that.

Hmm, I see. Yes it would be wrong to "turn science into" philosophical naturalism, when it is a discipline relying on methodological naturalism only.

Philosophical naturalism is in itself a reasonable viewpoint to adopt, but one cannot claim that science requires it, or proves it is correct.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hmm, I see. Yes it would be wrong to "turn science into" philosophical naturalism, when it is a discipline relying on methodological naturalism only.

Philosophical naturalism is in itself a reasonable viewpoint to adopt, but one cannot claim that science requires it, or proves it is correct.

Some people as I understand it don't get the difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism.
I once saw it stated as "Science proves philosophical naturalism".
Such debates are sometimes similar to debating a young earth creationist. Both don't understand how science works, though the error in thinking is different, it ends the same way.

1. Science works on everything as the only form of knowledge. (overdone for effect)
2. Science doesn't work at all. (overdone for effect)
3. Science is a limited form of knowledge and only works in some cases, not all.

Neither picks the apparently correct 3rd option.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Here is one version of how to do that; i.e to combine the 2.

I will now as a human construct claim that I can eliminate all human constructs and turn everything into natural as science. You don't understand reality at all if you don't understand reality as me and this is not a human construct. This is how science works, because I say so as a human construct.

I am as a "we" universal and can speak for all humans and that "we" is not a human construct, because I say so as a human construct.

As long as I catch someone for all of reality doing that with: We, with science... I will point out that we are playing human constructs of what we all ought to do. And that "what we all ought to do" is apparently a human construct, regardless of you claiming science, religion, philosophy or what not.

Regards
Mikkel

Seems pretty meaningless.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Seems pretty meaningless.

Seems subjectively pretty meaningless to you, but not me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah, we don't disagree.

Like I told you so many times already....

All you really are doing is just state the obvious. But then in unecessarily overcomplicated wording, which only serves to confuse and argue for the sake of arguing.

And you do this in every thread, no matter the topic, where you happen to catch a reference to science.

It's quite annoying and time wasting.

You don't do that, others do that.

Who does that?
You don't seem to care when you go on these "rants". You see the word "science" and there you are, with your state-the-obvious drivel ad nauseum. I see you do this regardless of who you are replying to.

 

[Thief]

Here is one version of how to do that; i.e to combine the 2.

I will now as a human construct claim that I can eliminate all human constructs and turn everything into natural as science. You don't understand reality at all if you don't understand reality as me and this is not a human construct. This is how science works, because I say so as a human construct.

I am as a "we" universal and can speak for all humans and that "we" is not a human construct, because I say so as a human construct.

As long as I catch someone for all of reality doing that with: We, with science... I will point out that we are playing human constructs of what we all ought to do. And that "what we all ought to do" is apparently a human construct, regardless of you claiming science, religion, philosophy or what not.

Regards
Mikkel

I like the part where science....for lack of a repeatable experiment
or a petri dish large enough

WE HAVE THE ANSWER!
it's right here in all these numbers only a few of us understand

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Like I told you so many times already....

All you really are doing is just state the obvious. But then in unecessarily overcomplicated wording, which only serves to confuse and argue for the sake of arguing.

And you do this in every thread, no matter the topic, where you happen to catch a reference to science.

It's quite annoying and time wasting.



Who does that?
You don't seem to care when you go on these "rants". You see the word "science" and there you are, with your state-the-obvious drivel ad nauseum. I see you do this regardless of who you are replying to.

Could you please start using critical thinking and some form of analytical thinking.
Reality is not as simple as you make it out to be and the moment you do this:
You explain reality in to over-reductive and to simple terms, you end up answering me with in effect emotions. That is okay, you are human and so am I. You just don't think about reality like I do. Fine, we are still both humans.

I do this when I spot "non-methodological naturalism" claiming to be science.
You real should test the limits of science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I like the part where science....for lack of a repeatable experiment
or a petri dish large enough

WE HAVE THE ANSWER!
it's right here in all these numbers only a few of us understand

I don't understand what you write. Would you please explain more?

 

[Thief]

I don't understand what you write. Would you please explain more?

science is an attempt to explain anything that can happen
the how and the why

some topics don't fit in controlled experiments
the topic of dark energy and dark matter for example

yet science will insist
IT HAS TO BE THERE!
our equations say so!

all too often someone will stand before camera and make a speech
and all the while admitting there is no PROOF
insist of a certainty

just like someone believing in God

 

[ratiocinator]

and all the while admitting there is no PROOF

Your ignorance of science is showing again.

just like someone believing in God

No.

 

[Thief]

Your ignorance of science is showing again.



No.

your knee jerk is noted

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Okay, here is an example involving science as explaining, informing and telling.

Start here:
How the Trolley Problem Works

Now science can explain all the physics, chemistry and biology involved and inform you of the likely outcome of pulling or not pulling the lever.
But can science tell you, if you ought to pull or not?
No!!!

That is the limit of science in practice. It can explain and inform, but it can't do an ought as what you ought to do.
Simple, right?!!

Regards
Mikkel

 

[ratiocinator]

your knee jerk is noted

Much like your ignorance of the subject. Come on, even you must realise that science is about evidence, not proof. There is plenty of evidence for dark matter and energy, and none at all for any of the thousands of gods humans have dreamed up....