What Are the Assumptions of Science?

[paarsurrey]

That every "fact" is a tenuous description.

I agree with you.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Correct--and it's amazing what the group will deny in order to arrive at their particular "truth."

I like your post.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Science has to assume that any observable is somehow tied to the real.

I like your post.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

that any idea or expression can be taken exactly the same by all participants.
otherwise the result will be disputed

Does even an idea exist? Can science determine magnitude of an idea if it exists?
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

that any idea or expression can be taken exactly the same by all participants.
otherwise the result will be disputed

For sure.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Naturalism, at least a methodological one.
This begs the question what naturalism means. Probably, the more compact definition is the lack of any teleology or ultimate goal/purpose. Just blind mechanisms.
Ciao
- viole

Naturalism without purpose/goal must be blind.
Regards

 

[viole]

Naturalism without purpose/goal must be blind.
Regards

Yes, not only must be blind. It is blind.

Is that bad?

Ciao

- viole

 

[paarsurrey]

It's a place to start. If we had started with the assumption that the laws of nature and the various measured constants (speed of light, etc.) vary all over the place and all over the time, it would be pointless to study it and try to apply that knowledge. However, regardless of whether we made the assumption one way or the other, once we started carefully observing and testing our observations, we discovered that it certainly appears to be the case that the laws of nature have and are working as far as we can observe, which is back to just after the "big bang," and that the constants do appear to be constant, at least as far back and as far out as we can observe. "Before" the big bang, and "outside" of the observable universe we can currently know nothing about, although we can make conjectures...but without verifiable observations, they will remain just that. So, in a very pragmatic sense, we can say we understand the physical universe well enough...

So through science we cannot observe everything that exists?Is the faith of science in the "constants" that they don't change a conjecture or a certainty?
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes, not only must be blind. It is blind.
Is that bad?
Ciao
- viole

No, but when nature will evolve to have ears and eyes? Who will evolve it?
Thanks and regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Of course it has requirements. And the scientific method does not give the impression of being demolished. Despite having exactly that requirement.
Ciao
- viole

Has science got consciousness to give impression or expressions to one?
Thanks and regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I'm sorry, but that shows a very limited understanding of what science is and what science can and does do. To start with, there is no singular "scientific method," but a variety of methods for observing and testing various aspects of the physical universe. Second, everything humans do with thought require us to make assumptions--we experience sitting at our computers typing this conversation on this RF thread, and we must assume that our experience is reality.

So, science is not a reality, it stands on assumptions that are not even uniform in different disciplines.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Why not?
Actually, science assumes that if deity/ies exist, they will show up in our careful observation and testing, that is, that they will not be "supernatural"

In a sense, Dark Matter and Dark Energy at this point in time are "supernatural" because we don't have any good theory to explain either, much less both. In the future, science may eventually come upon an explanation, but for now it has merely observed the presence of something it cannot explain.

A big assumption and a big if?
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Why not?
Actually, science assumes that if deity/ies exist, they will show up in our careful observation and testing, that is, that they will not be "supernatural"
In a sense, Dark Matter and Dark Energy at this point in time are "supernatural" because we don't have any good theory to explain either, much less both. In the future, science may eventually come upon an explanation, but for now it has merely observed the presence of something it cannot explain.

Did science ever fix a regular discipline to find an attributive Being that has no physical/material or even spiritual properties?
Thanks and regards

 

[metis]

The two most basic axioms are that the universe is observable (iow, we can at least somewhat rely on our senses) and that the universe is orderly (iow, cause & effect). Neither can be proven, but both are so logical that to deny either means total chaos whereas not a single thing can possibly be known.

BTW, maybe we should start a thread entitled "What Are the Assumptions of Religion"? I think I will.

 

[paarsurrey]

The two most basic axioms are that the universe is observable (iow, we can at least somewhat rely on our senses) and that the universe is orderly (iow, cause & effect). Neither can be proven, but both are so logical that to deny either means total chaos whereas not a single thing can possibly be known.
BTW, maybe we should start a thread entitled "What Are the Assumptions of Religion"? I think I will.

The truthful revealed religion has no assumptions. Right?
Regards

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This demolishes the Scientific Method to start with. Why should Scientific Method have any requirements? Isn't it supposed to be complete in itself. If it is incomplete then the results cannot be complete and exact.
Regards

Yes, and science the institution demolishes science the method as it's first order of business

consensus, authority, academic opinion, versus practical, demonstrable, self evident truth.

two entirely opposite approaches

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

So through science we cannot observe everything that exists?

No, because some things are too small to observe, except with exceptional instruments such as the CERN accelerator, and even then there are probably smaller things that we cannot yet observe. And some things are too far away for us to study in detail; for example, when we look into deep space, we can only look as far light has traveled since the beginning of this cosmos--and of those distant galaxies, quasars, etc., we can see, we see them only as they existed long ago, not as they appear now. Even around us in our everyday world, we cannot observe and record and study everything that happens. So yes, science has its limits--we cannot use it to observe and study EVERYTHING; we can, however, use it to observe and understand typical examples of things and events.

Have you got a better idea for how to collect and understand information about the physical world we live in?

Is the faith of science in the "constants" that they don't change a conjecture or a certainty?
Regards

Through careful observation and testing, scientists have identified these various constants in our environment here on earth, and as far out as we can see into the universe. At first, the estimates of these constants was very approximate, but over the last several hundred years, and especially in the last century or so, scientists have refined and retested and reobserved and verified that these constants do not appear to have changed since the big bang. That doesn't mean they don't change, and won't change, but right now we see no evidence that they have or do change. To use your terms, they are not a certainty--because people who really do science understand that knowledge is provisional, and usually will tell you and the world what we still are uncertain about, still need to collect more information on, and so. However, these constants are "conjectures" that are backed up with a great deal of carefully collected evidence and experience. A wise gambler would not bet much money on them being inconstant.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

The truthful revealed religion has no assumptions. Right?
Regards

Wrong. The assumption is that what has been "revealed" to someone in the ancient past is truth. It assumes that there is a God. It assumes that no one involved with the religion has ever lied, that the texts of the books are perfect and are not filled with errors, that the universe is not really as it seems when we test it through science, but is really something entirely different, and scientists and those who look for natural explanations are deluded and wrong, even evil because they dare question the "truthful revealed religion."

"The truthful revealed religion" cannot be tested. It cannot be gainsayed. It cannot be refuted because it makes no testable claims about anything (and I'm being generous there, the reality is that the holy texts of every religion are filled with statement about the nature of the world that simply do not match up with reality, and many of the leaders of the various religions, over the years, have made claims about reality that, too, are shown and known to be wrong).

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes, and science the institution demolishes science the method as it's first order of business
consensus, authority, academic opinion, versus practical, demonstrable, self evident truth.
two entirely opposite approaches

Thanks and regards

 

[paarsurrey]

No, because some things are too small to observe, except with exceptional instruments such as the CERN accelerator, and even then there are probably smaller things that we cannot yet observe. And some things are too far away for us to study in detail; for example, when we look into deep space, we can only look as far light has traveled since the beginning of this cosmos--and of those distant galaxies, quasars, etc., we can see, we see them only as they existed long ago, not as they appear now. Even around us in our everyday world, we cannot observe and record and study everything that happens. So yes, science has its limits--we cannot use it to observe and study EVERYTHING; we can, however, use it to observe and understand typical examples of things and events.
Have you got a better idea for how to collect and understand information about the physical world we live in?

I am not against science, science is a useful human construct, man-made, if it remains within its scope and does not exceed it limits. It should not out-step.
Regards