As opposed to religion?
A good question by @9-10ths_Penguin I think.
If you wanted to contrast the two,
A good question by @9-10ths_Penguin I think.
If you wanted to contrast the two,
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What do You Think Science is...
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
exchemist
Veteran Member
Science is a systematic way of understanding nature, by making observations and the building of models to account for them and to predict what else we can expect to observe.
Religion is a far more multifaceted thing. If I had to describe the essence of what they all seem to have in common, I would say it is a guide to help a person live their life, by giving them ways to deal, psychologically, with its triumphs and misfortunes, and how to relate to others. Usually religion does so by reference to stories of idealised beings, whether human or supernatural. Religions in practice are also vehicles for transmitting culture and tradition, and a source of community.
Last edited:
Science is the process of finding things out by being skeptical of all ideas and testing the limits of applicability of all ideas.
This leads to the idea that anything not testable is ultimately neither true nor false.
This process can be used for religious ideas as well, but usually isn't. People tend not to want to know when their religious ideas fail.
This leads to the idea that anything not testable is ultimately neither true nor false.
This process can be used for religious ideas as well, but usually isn't. People tend not to want to know when their religious ideas fail.
Science still requires some leaps of faith (assumptions to be made that can't be verified). So it's a belief in itself. A much more verifiable belief system, but a belief nonetheless.
Scientism.
exchemist
Veteran Member
No, please do not conflate science with scientism. Scientism is a pejorative term for the way in which some people (not many) try to push science into areas of human experience it is not well equipped to deal with.
But I agree science requires faith: faith that the processes of nature are orderly and can thus be understood and predicted, if we can characterise the order well enough. I think Einstein wrote one or two essays on the subject of the role of this kind of faith in science.
"scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality."
This is exactly what I hear from most scientists. Doesn't seem perjorative to me. Seems accurate, no?
Don't most scientists agree, that the only way for us to gather knowledge, is via objective means and the scientific method?
exchemist
Veteran Member
Not if you make it clear what your scope of enquiry is. How does science help you gather knowledge of music or literature? Apart from in the trivial sense of collecting documents. What has science to say about love?
I've never met a scientist yet who would seriously contend that the only way to understand such things is by the methods of science.
ppp
Well-Known Member
I doubt that is what you hear from "most" scientists, since most scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power. Scientists and Belief.
However, science has been demonstrated as the most reliable method, that we have so far, for gaining knowledge about the universe in which we love.
However, it is true that
Music can be broken down to mathematics, patterns, and emotional responses via chemical messengers.
Same with love. The science can show us how and why we love. Too bad it misses the experience itself.
Audie
Veteran Member
Audie
Veteran Member
Nontrivial lil things.
To me, there's essentially no overlap between science and religion. They're about as different as is possible. Their agendas, methods, and values are unrelated, as are their output and its utility. The religious will say that they are two ways of acquiring truth, and that they address different realms, but I don't agree with that. I don't count unjustified belief as truth, and that includes the belief in realms other than nature.
So what do I think science is? Science as most people understand the word is formal empiricism, or the systematic examination of nature often performed by specialists in laboratories and observatories in order to extract rules that embody observable regularities and allow one to more accurately predict outcomes.
I say formal, because I eventually noticed that that is what we all do in the normal course of daily life. We observe our world and make inductions that inform our actions in an effort to achieve desirable outcomes. It's learning by experience. We learn how to treat people this way. We use experience to generate rules of conduct and test them empirically, keeping those that facilitate desired outcomes and modifying or rejecting those that lead to undesirable outcomes. Isn't that the same thing the scientists do, but more formally?
My dogs do this as well, albeit without language or explicit reasoning. They make an observation, then generalize (induction), then apply the knowledge to achieve desired outcomes. I recall one that would look out a window and see a cat, and want to chase it. The most direct route to outside required moving away from the window to change rooms and use the dog door. Isn't this what scientists are doing, but instead of figuring out how to get to a cat, they work on how to get to the moon using empiricism just like the dog? They observe the world, generalize, confirm the induction with empirical testing, and use the information to achieve desired outcomes.
I consider the latter informal science now. Unlike formal science and religion, which have nothing in common, formal science and informal science as I've defined them are essentially the same thing.
Audie
Veteran Member
Not accurate.
Not definition,
Not your most
Not your " hear from"
The only use made in this form is perjorative
Audie
Veteran Member
Non overlap shading into a repulsive force
exchemist
Veteran Member
Nothing in that article claims that that is there is all there is to know about love. And no scientist I have known would claim that is all there is to it either.
In the same vein, on music, science can tell you about why tones at certain pitch intervals are concordant and others discordant. But only a 6-cylinder idiot would claim that gives you any insight into Bach's music.
Let's get real.