What is science founded on?
  • Gregory
    5k
    It seems rational to me to say science has no foundation, and I would enjoy some feedback. First off, science would have to prove that two identical objects will always have the same actions. Individuality might count for more than we think. Objects can only exist as they exist. Secondly, science might a fraud because we can only know about causality in our own bodily actions (picking things up and making free choices). I can feel causality when I pick up a chair, for example. But as Hume shows, we cannot expand it out into the universe. We see only sequence, not causality. There may be no way to know about cosmology for example because there is no way to know for sure all the laws have been known so far. Lastly, how many times did Galileo drop the two balls in order to know that they fall at the same rate? Maybe after ten tries he will be satisfied. But maybe after then tries the laws change. The law is determined to change on the 11th.
    Gregory Options
  • Wheatley
    2.3k
    Science is based on assumptions. Scientists assume that it doesn't matter where and when you do an experiment, all else being equal. Science also assumes that similar experiments will produce similar results.
    Wheatley Options
  • Harry Hindu
    5.9k
    Science is based on logic and empirical data - the same things that you use to figure out the answer to every problem you ever had. What other method of determing truths do we have? How would you support any conclusion you have - whether it be religious, philosophical, or whatever - without some logic and empirical evidence? It's just how our minds work. So you could say that science is founded on the way our minds work and solve problems.
    Harry Hindu Options
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    ↪Gregory


    It seems like you're not literally asking what science is founded on, but what provable claims is it founded on.

    A core tenet of science methodology is that empirical claims are not provable. They must be open to revision via falsification. That's one idea it's founded on.
    Terrapin Station Options
  • Mww
    5.3k
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6447/what-is-science-founded-on

    Observation.
    Mww Options
  • Gregory
    5k
    I think science assumes free will is real. That's why a scientist would say its unlikely they just happen to come upon certain laws. But if compatibilism is true, and instead of God being the determiner of what happens (as Aquinas thought), matter is the prime mover, then we could possibly be in a world where the laws could change any second and we would be at the mercy of its flux. You can say "I tested this chemical and it always ruins steel", but maybe that law changes after you've done the study. Science seems to be based on philosophy, and philosophy seems to give it no sure foundation
    Gregory Options
  • BC
    14.1k
    I think science assumes free will is real. — Gregory

    Really? Why do you think that? Is 'free will' even a suitable topic for science?

    matter is the prime mover — Gregory

    What about matter would make it possible for the laws of nature to change arbitrarily? Matter seems to be pretty reliable.
    BC Options
  • Gregory
    5k
    If free will was an illusion, Galileo couldn't say "I dropped the two balls ten times and they always fell at the same rate, so they will always do so in the future". This is because he might have been at the cycle where the balls fall at the same rate ten times, but only those ten times. If he had free will, Galileo would seem to have more statistical evidence, but not if compatibilism is true.

    Science seems regular when we are making phones and such. But even then, philosophy would seem to say that this could change at any moment, if only because other laws could kick in at any time. This causes special problems for cosmology, where they try to rewind the laws of physics. There could be infinitely many laws we don't know about that totally blur what happened in the past. So we can and should try to make cell phones, but saying we know thru physics what happened in the past seems to be an absurdity
    Gregory Options
  • Pathogen
    61
    :death:
    Pathogen Options
  • Gregory
    5k
    Saying either that laws can change or that new laws from, say, another dimension will start kicking in are not different with regard to a methodology of science. Haven't you seen sci-fi movies?
    Gregory Options
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    philosophy seems to give it no sure foundation — Gregory

    Without addressing my comment above, here again you're asking about "sure" foundations.
    Terrapin Station Options
  • god must be atheist
    5.1k
    Gregory, I wish you would answer this with a simple yes or no:

    "I, Gregory, am so dissatisfied with the Bible (or the Koran) being proven wrong over and over again by scientific truths, that I am willing to reject science as a whole, since I am a true believer in the Bible (or the Koran). Therefore what I perform on the pages of these forums is an effort to undermine the belief in the validity of science."

    So please state "yes" or "no".

    Your objections to scientific findings in my view are so childish and outlandishly insane, so to speak, that you only are being argued against because here people will argue at the drop of a hat. Any other platform people would ridicule you, but here, people cherish and hanker for an argument against which they can come out victorious. Yours is one of them. Therefore you are treated here with respect.
    god must be atheist Options
  • Gregory
    5k
    Where did God come into this question? I don't believe in God
    Gregory Options
  • Gregory
    5k
    My concerns stem from reading David Hume. Closer to the Truth series on youtube had the question of "whether the laws of nature can change" addressed by physicists. To my mind they had no good answers. Again, it seems reasonable to try to manipulate nature in our favor, but it seems arrogant to me to say scientists know what happened in the universe billions of years ago when it can't be proven that "rewinding" the laws of physics is the way to go
    Gregory Options
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.7k
    Saying either that laws can change or that new laws from, say, another dimension will start kicking in are not different with regard to a methodology of science. — Gregory

    Science results are provisional, not written in stone.
    PoeticUniverse Options
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    but it seems arrogant to me to say scientists know what happened in the universe billions of years ago when it can't be proven that "rewinding" the laws of physics is the way to go — Gregory

    Neither science nor knowledge in general are about proof.
    Terrapin Station Options
  • god must be atheist
    5.1k
    Where did God come into this question? I don't believe in God — Gregory

    Thanks, Gregory, for your straight answer.
    god must be atheist Options
  • Gregory
    5k
    Believers in supernatural powers have the problem that this 'realm' might be out to fool them in order to garner more faith
    Gregory Options
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.

Sign In Create Account

Categories