Does Science = Truth

[video=youtube;Y68mGbvZZZg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y68mGbvZZZg[/video]

Well...that was interesting. I figured I'd share it.

 

That video is full of crap.

This is part of the anti-science crap that is going on in America today.

Science is not an evil nebulous thing that is telling people what they can and can not believe.

As for me, I'd still trust science more than I trust religion any day.

Religious people are far more dishonest than science is.

Science is not perfect, but it is a far cry from religion.

So here's my counter to it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXMKPvWqgYk

It's a 25 minute video showing the dirty rotten tricks that religious people use.

 

Hough, there are many little comments I'd like to make here.

First, in response to the title of the thread, which is quite removed fromt the content of the thread, I'd like to point out that it's not that science "is" truth, or "equals" truth, science is a method which has been optimised to obtain truth. It is not above the scientific industry to get things wrong, but science has been designed to minimise the frequency and seriousness of this happening. This is not a practical problem for science unless someone has asserted that some other system is more reliable, at which point, one has already disregarded the optimal search for truth.

Secondly, I'm not sure exactly what the main points of the clip are. The clip mentions some kind of criticism of science based on people putting it on a pedestal, but I don't see that of more of a problem than people eating lightbulbs is to the concept of lightbulbs.

Seems that it is the standard approach to attach a youtube clip, so here's Feynman explaining how the question why does not necessarily have obvious lines of answers when one considers concepts that humans don't have an intuitive understanding of already (ie, addressing Nietzsche's concern that science does not consider ultimate meaning).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA&feature=kp

 

Haha. I don't mean to laugh, but you're off the mark on this one. A simple misunderstanding.

Calling the existentialists pro-religion is like calling Ghandi pro-holocaust. They saw that with the decline of religion due to the scientific revolution, an existential crisis arises. Religion certainly provides an antidote to this crisis, which will become obvious if you ask the religious what the purpose of life is. Faced with the suffering and pointlessness of life, they make their purpose to get to the second, better world: heaven.

Read some Albert Camus, he probably makes it most clear. He saw life like the myth of Sisyphus. Sisyphus has been condemned to roll a boulder up a hill over and over for all eternity. Camus views life like Sisyphus' struggle. There is no purpose, no meaning behind it. After rolling the stone to the top of the hill, he has to start all over again. The question "why?" goes unanswered. Camus thought that happiness could only exist if Sisyphus could be happy.

[hr][/hr]

As for science leading to truth, this is fairly obvious. A long time ago we abandoned irrational metaphysical assumptions about the world and based our development purely off of experience. But experience is subjective, and does not at all reflect "objective reality". Indeed, we cannot even know if such a thing exists. Our experience is inherently colored by perspective.

Science is the study of phenomena, not noumena. Hence, it is the study of patterns. Science can only hope to tell us how things are, or, more accurately, how we perceive things to be.

 

I can't help but think that you didn't watch the video. It makes many of the points you are trying to attack it with.

 

No.
Science is the guess-manship of men who use science facts to develop their ideas which they think might be true.

BUT,...
The Scientific Method does find those Facts which which the scientists will be using.

 

The video isn't denouncing scince, it's making the distinction between science as a fundamental truth, and science as a process through which the truth can be found.

In other words, it's saying that everything that is scientific isn't necessarily true. To believe that science is a truth in and of itself is to make it a religion.

 

The problem is I've seen those very arguments used by Christians to attack science. Generally speaking, Christians have a hard time with science and don't understand that science and religion don't really have to be at odds with each other.

Except when things are diametrically opposed, like evolution and creation.

However, evolution is not truly attacking creationism nor is it trying to replace creationism like Christians think it is.

 

The title of the thread is a question which the video answers pretty much the same way you answered it.

It distinguishes science as being the "ultimate truth" versus science being a method by which the truth can be gained.

Sure, I'll watch it

 

but who actually does that latter? Science is the English word which describes a method of determining facts. A method is the question, not the answer, so it's nonsensical to attribute qualities to it (such as truth). Perhaps the vid implies that some people 'trust' the method to an almost religious (unquestioning) degree?

 

I've never met anyone who believes science is truth and I've never met anyone who behaves as though science is a religious experience. I've seen it written that these people exist. Are we sure these 'science is the new God' believers aren't just a figment of other's imaginations, characters in a fantasy?

 

Science is a process, not the hypothesis or the conclusion. It's a methodology. Science will accept any kind of guess or hypothesis to be put to experimentation, but it will not accept as fact what cannot be proven so...at least, in the minds of those doing the experiment. This does have it's faults, obviously, Sometimes, falsehoods are pushed as fact.

Well...science and the possibility of a God doesn't have to be at odds with each other because the concept of a God is both open-to-intepretation and neither provable or impeachable at the moment. No verifiable information can be gathered or tested concerning a God. However, religion attempts to provide truths with no evidence. The distinction woiuld be that you're belief in God would simply be that there is a thing that exists named a God. But you don't know if it created everything, so you can't say that. You don't know if it created the world or man, so you can't say that. You don't know if it said anything, or if it can even speak, so you can't say that. You don't know if it's all powerful, so you can't say that. A belief in God would be utterly that, in and of itself. You would simply believe in the possibility, but without any proof, you can't attempt to define it as religion does.

You're right. Evolution is only the process by which biological things change over time. It's not a theory of the origin of biological things. Some scientists attempt to stretch the term, though, but it is only theories.

Creationism...is a poblem because there is not just one kind. Every Christian tends to believe their theory on Creationism is the canon of their particular belief. From an outside perpective, 1,000 different Christians will have 100 different beliefs on how things were created. Even the people sitting in the same chuch will have different ideas. Then, of course, you have other religions with other beliefs, and the people within those religions hav a variety of beliefs within that religion. Creationism is religion and religion is merely suggestions without any sort of responsible verification- the more infamous being the 6,000 year old earth. Dinosaurs died long before civilization. And civilization existed before 4000 BC.

The two are not compatible. In actuality, by observing the world and discovering the meaning of it through trial, error, and analysis, you would discover the truths of existence. The what- and perhaps, someday, the why if there is any "why". But simply makng up a story is not responsible. It's deception.

 

Well, you'll rarely hear anyone state it, directly, that science is an all-truth, but it does tend to show up through conversation. One of the best ways to spot such is in religion. Some people will counter religion with facts, but others will simply say things like evolution or the Big Bang cancels out this or that- when both of those things are just theories. In such, they don't really know, themselves, they simply believe that scientific sounding things are true.

Another is climate change. Both sides of the argument have opinions, and both have a dizzying amount of "factual science" to support their claims. Som people have no idea whether or not these things or right or worng. How can the average person decode something as complx as weather science over long periods of time from merely reading an article or two? They simply take it on faith that what they see- science- is the truth, and they hold it up as such. In such ways, its n different than reading the bible and holding it up as truth.

As for whether science will become a new religion, I think it's entirely possible. Even now, people don't know all that much about science, they simply learn it through what they read or what they are told. This is no different than religion. Some people experiment, but these are few. The majority merely take it on faith that what they are being told is truth. The greater that gap betweens merely believing something and actually verifying it for yourself grows, the more a persons/peoples concept of science begins to resemble a faith rather than a methodology. In other words, anything that is said to be science will be believed.

 

we don't 'take it on faith' when it comes to science - we TRUST that findings are accurate because the method is applied and verified by many different people, from many different cultures, places, economic situations, and religious backgrounds. if you have the time and resources, you can determine the findings for yourself, as they don't BECOME findings unless they're repeatable and demonstrable. since we know that science works this way (peer reviewed, repeatable, verifiable information), we are able to be comfortable without necessarily doing all the science ourselves.

and more importantly, science is not static, it goes where the evidence takes it. scrupulously honest, in other words. in fact, it's possibly the only thing which could legitimately be called a 'god' in the sense that most religionists mean it, because it operates outside of the egos of individuals, and is not tainted by the imagination seeing answers where none exist. individual scientists will always employ ego and imagination, but the peer review element, and the requirement for demonstrable repeatability means that such fails can't sustainably taint findings. in instances where there is taint, the system fairly quickly identifies such findings as bad science.

so, while science could easily be argued to be worthy of the title 'god', no one in actuality behaves religiously in its honour. the idea that some do, probably stems from the inability of theists to visualise a non-worshipful approach to life.

- - - Updated - - -

ditto. never met such a being, and I know LOTS of scientists, and LOTS of atheists

 

In other words, you accept what others tell you on faith.

 

what did you miss in my first para? we TRUST because we know that the peer review system exists to 'police' the information obtained via the scientific method. the peer review system is not made up of people with aligned agendas, so we can TRUST that no bias is involved.

 

Trust is the same as faith when you trust in something that you, personally, do not know is real or right, but merely because other people have said it is so. You are right that the distinction between religion and scientific conclusions is that scientific conclusions can be demonstrated and proven. However, most people do not and likely will not do this. They will take it on faith that what scientists generally classify as science is tuthful. It doesn't matter whether it is ultimately right or not, it is that they believed without any verification. I understand that this is based on convenience, as non has the time to verify every single thing, and that 99% of the time, it may be right, but, nonetheless, they rely on faith rather than verification.

The danger in this is that, eventually, those who call themselves scientists may begin to say false things that are not proven true. But since no one really checks for themselves, they will simply take it on faith that it is true. Surely, there will be some people who will experiment and may prove it to be false, but what if those people are heckled, ostracized, or worse, such that their opinions are never truly concidered because people have the preconception that what is being passed as truth is truth because science says so?

I understand what you are saying, I think. You vouching for the intergrity of scientists, themselves, and the scientific method. Well, the method is true in it's attempt to relay truth, but consider when doctors and universities were saying that cigarettes was healthy. And consider that even years after that, many people were trying to get it through to the public that cigarettes are unhealthy- increasingly so. But scientists said it was okay, and so did doctors, and while people may have had the ability to test for themselves, and maybe they had the ability to see for themselves the results of smoking by loved ones and friends, smoking became a bigger and bigger thing. This is the danger.

Another thing can be the pseudo-science of Eugenics and racial superiority as propagated by the Nazi's. Some people believe that to this day, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of those people held office. Today, we know this to be false, but in the past, it was being accpted as truth in many places- not just Germany. There was also things like phrenology- where people believed they could tell your personality by the shape of your nose. Ludicrous, today, but back then, it gained a notable following.

Well...no and yes.

Science doesn't "do" anything. People do. The methodlogy is static, but the practicitioners are the variable. While the methodology may be the best method, it doesn't prevent the practitioners from doing things falsely- or applying false principles as truth and calling it science. Kinda like the old "if a tree falls in the forest, but you didn't hear it, did it fall?" Well...what if it didn't, but I said it did? You could walk up and look, but it's kinda out the way, so you take my word for it. I'm right about 99% of things, but I'm not about this. In the end, it becomes an accepted fact that a tree did fall when it did not. Yes, someone, in time, may come to set it right, but how much damage was done in the process? Just like religion. Yes, it was false for a while, and maybe, one day, it will not be false, but while it is false, what is the damage that occured because people believed it was true?

 

Your statement in relevant part was: "we TRUST that findings are accurate because the method is applied and verified by many different people, from many different cultures, places, economic situations, and religious backgrounds. " There is nothing in that statement involving police action... peer review can be associated with the idea of pleasing those that set the agenda, when that peer review is seen from a differing perspective. Quite unlike the police action you describe below.

Can you provide PROOF of that claim regarding aligned agendas?

 

I can't agree. Our trust in scientific findings is borne of long exposure to the effectiveness and soundness of the peer review system. in other words, the trust has been 'earned', palpably and demonstrably. We can safely assume (based on the overwhelming likelihood - likelihood being the important distinction) that what we're told is correct at that point in time. But we can also verify findings ourselves - personally - if we're so inclined. This last being a very important distinction.

Your reference to cigarettes et al isn't quite right, I don't think. We trust the METHOD, but accept that any finding today might be found to be incorrect tomorrow. We trust the method BECAUSE we moved from thinking cigs were the bomb to understanding that they're toxic. We also understand that the method itself must adapt to new information, and is therefore subject to change (in pursuit of facts/truth). There is no 'solid ground' when it comes to science, and I think this is what many have a problem with.

 

Sometimes there is faith in science.

Otherwise, why would there be a search for the cure for cancer if there wasn't any faith that one is out there?

And sometimes it happens with poor scientific methodology. Sometimes a scientist will come to a conclusion and make all of that evidence to fit their conclusion. This is how skeptics work when it comes to things like UFOs. They refuse to believe that some people might be truly avducted so look for other reasons that might fit, such as calling these people mentally ill.

So on and so forth.

 

I'd call it confidence rather than faith, when it comes to a cancer cure. Or if you wanted to lend it the histrionics favoured by religionists, you might call it 'hope'. I'm sure many researchers are confident a cure will be found, but none are able to say when and where. The hope comes in just because none of us wants to die from it - including scientists.

Scientists have difficulty passing off bad or tainted science in the peer review system. That's not to say it can't be done (or isn't done), but that the likelihood is low. Once again, we can only work in LIKELIHOODS.

Just for the record, I love sceptics. I would like to be one when I grow up

 

Correspondence Theory of Truth has utility, but unfortunately too many people think that theories are facts

 

the scientific meaning of theory can be understood as the most likely to be actual fact, so it's fairly safe.

people thinking outlandish supernatural claims, with absolutely no evidence or likelihoods for any of 'em, are facts ... well that's another kettle of squid.

 

No not really. People who attest to the absolute superiority of correspondence theory "truth" always resort to pragmatic theory when challenged on the validity of scientific theories as "truth" in my experience. Pragmatic theory, however, allows for kettles of squid to be treated just as true as pots of theoretical poop as long as they offer utility to society.

 

Yeah, really