:sad:the prevailing opinion is that "science is always right". — TheMadFool
This state of affairs in re the scientific worldview begs an explanation and the one that comes to mind is that scientific claims are considered incontrovertible truths, very unlike claims made by other worldviews. — TheMadFool
The Copernican Revolution certainly changed our worldview from a central position to an outlying position. I would give kudos to Galileo for starting the Scientific Revolution in that he laid out the rules of the scientific method which is basically a cohesion of Rationalism and Empiricism.Perhaps this privileged position is not unearned - it has repeatedly proven itself over the centuries since Copernicus kickstarted the scientific revolution. — TheMadFool
Isn't that part of the scientific method?Yeah, no it's the opposite, some scientific theories are only considered 'the best theory we currently have' so long as there is no data to the contrary... and people are constantly and actively looking for data that might not fit those theories. — ChatteringMonkey
Isn't that part of the scientific method? — Harry Hindu
I think what we're getting at is that the scientific method is open-minded. It accepts that present scientific explanations might not always be the best, and that there might be a better explanation. This explains why science is the default method - because it simply accepts any testable hypothesis that has been tested numerous times and still has predictive power. Every time you use your smartphone you are testing the science that the technology is based on. — Harry Hindu
So the only qualifier is that the hypothesis is testable by every human being. If it isn't, how can we say that what we know is useful for other human beings? — Harry Hindu
If science was always right, then the SpaceX manned mission wouldn't be considered a test flight. Every space mission is a test of our current scientific knowledge. One common saying among scientists is that "You only get the right answer after making all possible mistakes". — Harry Hindu
A hypothesis is a scientific opinion. It becomes fact after it has been tested by numerous human beings numerous times.I'm only concerned with those scientific claims that are well-established - having run the gauntlet of tests and retests consisting of both experiments of verification and falsification. These are, in my humble opinion, regarded as facts as opposed to opinion. — TheMadFool
So is the question then how do you know you have the right answer even after making all possible mistakes? I guess it determines how you define how you arrive at right answers as opposed to wrong ones. I think there's a thread somewhere around here about that.In the last statement, the quote, there's the indication that when science gets it right it does get it right and there can be no dissent unless you want to be called a lunkhead. — TheMadFool
It becomes fact — Harry Hindu
I'm only concerned with those scientific claims that are well-established - having run the gauntlet of tests and retests consisting of both experiments of verification and falsification. These are, in my humble opinion, regarded as facts as opposed to opinion.
If science was always right, then the SpaceX manned mission wouldn't be considered a test flight. Every space mission is a test of our current scientific knowledge. One common saying among scientists is that "You only get the right answer after making all possible mistakes".
— Harry Hindu
In the last statement, the quote, there's the indication that when science gets it right it does get it right and there can be no dissent unless you want to be called a lunkhead. — TheMadFool
Exactly, science has the reputation of being the purveyor of, as you put it, facts. Why is it in this exalted position? — TheMadFool
people seem reluctant to disagree that, according to chemistry (science), water is H2O? — TheMadFool
This state of affairs in re the scientific worldview begs an explanation and the one that comes to mind is that scientific claims are considered incontrovertible truths, very unlike claims made by other worldviews — TheMadFool
And why should they disagree? Is there some alternative that makes more sense? — jgill
And why should they disagree? Is there some alternative that makes more sense? — jgill
Very often scientists making comments about greater things are like mechanics, who presume their knowledge about engines, entitles them to pronounce upon literature. It don't work that way. — EnPassant
The usual setup is to compare Objective Facts (science) to Subjective Faith (religion). But religious believers don't accept that their Faith is mere opinion. Instead, they think their information comes from the highest authority, by direct revelation to prophets such as Jesus and Mohammed. Ironically, where all scientists can agree on the chemistry of H^2O, few religions can agree on what makes the water in a church font more holy than water in a well.0Exactly, science has the reputation of being the purveyor of, as you put it, facts. Why is it in this exalted position? — TheMadFool
Well yeah, if it has been tested countless of times over years, than maybe they have a point in calling dissenters lunkheads. It's like running your head into a wall over and over again, that IMHO qualifies as lunkhead behaviour. — ChatteringMonkey
I thought I pointed that out - because the hypothesis turns out to be useful for every human that applies it. Do smartphones work the same for everyone despite which religion you follow, or which philosophy you espouse? — Harry Hindu
What's confusing about science is that the methodology is very rational, but our relationship with that methodology is not. — Nuke
Generally speaking science is true or close to the truth. But truth about what? About primitive aspects of the physical world. Science and mathematics are primitive and can't answer the more sublime ontological questions about being and meaning. Lately scientists have had the temerity to pronounce upon all manner of things that are, let's face it, above their pay grade. Dawkins & Co. making philosophically juvenile remarks about God, religion and spirituality etc. It is amusing, even comical. Dawkins is not a good philosopher. Hawking is far far worse. Very often scientists making comments about greater things are like mechanics, who presume their knowledge about engines, entitles them to pronounce upon literature. It don't work that way. — EnPassant
The question is: is science the only way to knowledge? — EnPassant
The usual setup is to compare Objective Facts (science) to Subjective Faith (religion). But religious believers don't accept that their Faith is mere opinion. Instead, they think their information comes from the highest authority, by direct revelation to prophets such as Jesus and Mohammed. Ironically, where all scientists can agree on the chemistry of H^2O, few religions can agree on what makes the water in a church font more holy than water in a well.0
I suppose it was the universal acceptance of such pragmatic natural Facts that promoted mundane Science to its "exalted position" as the sole arbiter of truth about the world of here & now. Unfortunately, Jesus and Mohammed --- whose pronouncements are taken as "incontrovertible" --- are not nearly so unanimous in their "opinions" about the supernatural world. — Gnomon
So, you think the scientific worldview is, to say the least, closer to the truth than other worldviews? — TheMadFool
Yes I do, but I want to say that other worldviews don't necessarily have a whole lot to do with truth. That's not their primary function, I don't think. They're usually more metaphorical than literal. — ChatteringMonkey
Why are there more atheists in this day and age than in the past? What makes people give up a religious worldview, if not that it's about being grounded (in facts/truths)? — TheMadFool
Because Chistianity had Truth as one of its core values and ate its own tail... in short :-) — ChatteringMonkey
The problem is that scientists have done an excellent job of providing us with all kinds of goodies, and so naturally they have acquired significant authority. — Nuke
Why are these other worldviews, you mentioned religion, fading away while science seems to flourishing? — TheMadFool
Yes. What other paths to knowledge are there? — TheMadFool
What do you mean? — TheMadFool
Knowledge needs to be combined with wisdom. That's where 'religion' comes in — EnPassant
Science is concerned with primitive knowledge about material things. Consciousness is concerned with knowledge about life and being. — EnPassant
As I see it, the scientific worldview has acquired a special status in the modern world - like the joke that ends with the line, "the boss is always right", the prevailing opinion is that "science is always right". Perhaps this privileged position is not unearned - it has repeatedly proven itself over the centuries since Copernicus kickstarted the scientific revolution. — TheMadFool
Because Chistianity had Truth as one of its core values and ate its own tail... in short — ChatteringMonkey
Also because the Christians lost their power over the state, so now they can't force everyone in society to be at least nominally Christian. — Marchesk
primitive truths — EnPassant
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.