Is science merely the dominant superstition...

[Rockstar]

http://argumentsagainstscientificpositivism.blogspot.in/2017/02/how-pathetically-subjective-man-created.html


Deep stuff man

[Sailor Steve]

The title is a little misleading, since he only touches on the concept at the very end, and many of his quotes and arguments are unrelated to the stated overview.

I also have some trouble with the title itself, mainly because of the use of the "Science as Dogma" claim by religious apologists as an attempt to equate the two, thus opening science up to the same accusations of "belief without evidence" as applied to core religious beliefs. That doesn't seem to be his point, but the connection is there whether he meant it or not. Certainly there are people who feel that way, and certainly there are people who treat science as religion, but not that many.

I agree that we are all trapped inside our own minds, and within that framework we have no real objective concept of what lies outside ourselves. That said, the only options seem to be denying the rest of the world, which leads to madness, and accepting it as real. Since other people seem to have the same hopes, doubts, fears and dreams as us, it makes sense to assume they are as real as we are, or at least act as if they are.

As for science taking the place of religion as our one great belief, people who work in scientific fields are mostly aware of the possibility that they may be wrong, and most of them are willing to accept new evidence when it comes along, even when it contradicts their favorite theories.

I therefore think that he is only partly right, and just a little vague. He doesn't seem to have a real purpose in writing this, unless it's unstated and I just don't get it (a likely possibility).

But that's just me.

[Skybird]

A fool's brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition, and art into pedantry. - George Bernard Shaw

Science is no religion by content. But it can be fanatically turned into a cult, it can be censored in results it is allowed to create while banning unwanted findings, and in this somebody can behave like a religious zealot indeed. Still, science is no religion, and knows no dogmas. That does not protect it from imperfect men abusing it.

To me, it is a tool, a method. The most effective we ever have had. What we make of it, what we use it for - is up to us. Tools have no sense of morality.

Religions announce what they claim to be ultimate, absoilute truths - untested, and untestable. Science does not, and forms only temporary theories that it constantly checks and rechecks, corrects, precises, replaces, depending on tests. Religions love to accuse science of what religions do all the time: stating absolute truths. But science does not do that. Corrupt scientists indeed can turn into - well, scientists willing to corrupt the method, for a multitude of reasons. But that is no argument against the methodology of science. Only an argument against corruptable men.

[Sailor Steve]

Well said Sky.

[Von Due]

Skybird nails it. On the flip side: There are ongoing debates in the scientific community whether or not fields like black hole studies are within the realm of science, since we can never measure the interior of black holes, or in any way interact with the interior. The difference between faith and black hole studies however is that these studies do ask "what if?" and "is this how it really is?", again not presenting any "truths" but theories that will always be up for discarding. Same with big bang theories and theories of evolution. The best theory does not mean the only possible theory.

[Skybird]

Some people say a theory that cannot be tested, is no theory, since testing and thus: testability is a defining criterion for a scientific theory. I do not necessarily go this far (well, maybe sometimes I do), but say reflecting on such implications is - on a meta-level, if you want - again part of the scientific process: You even question your tools occasionally, to gain reassurance about and confidence in them.

If you would exclude theories that seem to be untestable from scientific dispute, you run the risk of limiting the ways in which scientific information gathering and formulation of new hypothesis and later: theories can go. Later on, the theory in question also may become testable, where in earlier times it seemed to be impossible.

The counter-risk against which this ^ must be balanced is that you maybe go to far and give wild speculation and fantasy the status of a scientific theory that it never did deserve in the first, and never will deserve.

I see the black hole debate in a comparable light.

We can never take the observer out of the observation completely, he always interferes. But we must try to reduce his impact on the obervation result to the best of our ability and reason. Being aware of these implications described, is an inevitable first step for that.

[Platapus]

As for science taking the place of religion as our one great belief, people who work in scientific fields are mostly aware of the possibility that they may be wrong, and most of them are willing to accept new evidence when it comes along, even when it contradicts their favorite theories.



I think that is the essence of science-- an acceptance that we may not know the right answer or even fully understand the question.

We understand what we think we understand but are always looking for additional data that can confirm, or more importantly refute the hypothesis.

In science there is always a continuing intellectual dissatisfaction that provides some of the motivation for trying to understand something "better" than we understand it now.

However, it also needs to be recognized that science relies on assumptions and there is always a risk that some may consider an assumption to be a demonstrated fact.

Which is why well structured scientific research identifies and evaluates assumptions associated with the issue.

[Sailor Steve]

However, it also needs to be recognized that science relies on assumptions and there is always a risk that some may consider an assumption to be a demonstrated fact.
I think that's the whole point of the observation-hypothesis-theory-review chain. Every scientist worth his credentials knows that today's pet theory may well be tomorrow's laughingstock. The point of peer review isn't to give validation to an hypothesis, but to try to disprove it. If it can be shown to be in error, then it needs more testing and correction (or junking altogether). If it can't be disproven then it becomes accepted. This only works if the testing never stops.

[ikalugin]

but to try to disprove it
And you make a falsifiability test on the hypothesis before that.

[Platapus]

That's one of the many things wrong with our education system.

We are still teaching our kids about the Null Hypothesis. I read several studies that pretty much refuted the Null Hypothesis. :D

[ikalugin]

Err by like model selection?

I think null hypothesis is a good tool for the school kid level of knowledge.