I'm not a scientist man!

[Global Skeptic]

Any of you ever heard of the demarcation line between science and religion or rather demarcation problem; i.e. what is science and what is non-science?
It has nothing to do science and religion, rather it has to with objective and subjective.

So relevant to this thread, here is an example:
Person A: I know that the theory of evolution is a fact.
Person B: I know that the Biblical Creation is a fact.
This first one is objective, the second one is subjective.

Now another example, now as a deduction:
Premise 1: "Person A: I know that the theory of evolution is a fact."
Premise 2: "Person B: I know that the Biblical Creation is a fact."
Conclusion/therefore: Person B is wrong.
That is both science(Person A), non-science(Person B) and philosophy - and the conclusion is not valid as deductive logic goes.

Is the key here the "I know" part? Would things change if we change the premises to:

Person A: I know that the theory of evolution is a fact.
Person B: I know that the Biblical Creation is a fact.
This first one is still objective, the second one is still subjective.

Premise 1: "Person A: The theory of evolution is a fact."
Premise 2: "Person B: The Biblical Creation is a fact."
Are both statements now drawn into the objective sphere by excluding the possibly subjective knowledge part?

Yes and no to the "I know", in so far as we have to exclude solipsism and brains in vat, and then if we both accept that a part of reality is objective, we can get to that
the theory of evolution is a fact and Biblical Creation is not a fact. But as to:
Premise 1: "Person A: The theory of evolution is a fact."
Premise 2: "Person B: The Biblical Creation is a fact."
Conclusion/therefore: Person B is wrong.
This still holds - That is both science(Person A), non-science(Person B) and philosophy - and the conclusion is not valid as deductive logic goes.

In other words - if we accept a part of reality is objective, then A's claim is true(philosophy)/a fact(science), B's is false/non-science and the conclusion/therefore is not valid(philosophy) and false/non-science.

So words overlap between science and philosophy, notably knowledge and false, but in general true belongs to logic and philosophy in the broader sense. So science has nothing to do with truth. Truth is a "cat-fight" within philosophy and religion.

 

[Global Skeptic]

...

Indeed. I don't think anybody here is suggesting that science somehow supplant our current moral and ethical system in some freaky sci-fi manner which is actually logically inconsistent and clearly outside the bounds of science. I have even stated such in one of my first posts in this thread. That is why I am largely ignoring his posts which keep insinuating we are.

So why is it wrong to teach science as a world-view and religion as a world-view?

 

[Borachio]

Well. This is an interesting conversation going on here. I'm sure it's just me, but I can't make head nor tail of it.

Truth, Science, Religion, Philosophy, Objectivity, Logic, Knowledge.

It is me, isn't it?

Anyway, carry on.

 

[Formaldehyde]

So why is it wrong to teach science as a world-view and religion as a world-view?

Why is it wrong to have religion and churches? Who said it was? It certainly wasn't me.

And who teaches science "as a world view"? You don't seem to understand even the basics of science. Again, there is no reason to feel threatened by it.

 

[Global Skeptic]

Why is it wrong to have religion and churches? Who said it was? It certainly wasn't me.

And who teaches science "as a world view"? You don't seem to understand even the basics of science. Again, there is no reason to feel threatened by it.

So it is okay to teach religion and science as equal? Or even religion as better than science?

 

[Angst]

You lost me here. Do you have an example? Are you referring to quantum mechanics where there is indeed a mathematical model which can indeed be related to empirical results? Merely because we cannot directly observe subatomic particles doesn't mean they likely do not exist. We can infer their existence through the use of the scientific method.

Sadly, I'm quoting physicists I've read articles of, so I do not have a specific example. Sorry. I will fail to convince you there.

Psychology is an excellent example where scientific advancement has been extremely slow other than the field of experimental psychology, largely because it has no real scientific basis. I also can't think of many major scientific advancements which have been made in sociology. Perhaps you can name a few?

There are other soft sciences than sociology and psychology. I could just go "economics" and "political theory" and leave it at that, really. I'm not sure I can include history, but that's so heavily dependant on humanities that I'm not sure it's includable. Anthropology - whether that be a subsection of sociology or not is up to you - got a huge kick in the arse during the last century. There's paedagogics. Do I really need to exemplify how these fields have changed recently or do you think we still beat up children, fx, as we did in the first half of the 1900s?

I'm not sure you understand what I'm asking you about though. My question is: Do you think the sciences > other faculties? Because all of your answers seem arrogant and it surprises me, as I've never felt this vibe from you before. It's really unpleasant - you're just really on the offensive like I'm attacking the field of science with dirty liberal arts or something.

Anyways, I'd like to see your measurement of progress in a certain field. Is it how many papers that are published? How many respectable papers? Who determines what papers are respectable? You, someone who isn't actually a soft scientist? (Now I may be fallacious, I'm just pretty sure you said you studied some scientific field earlier)

That is not to say that a massive amount of non-scientific study and research has not occurred. It has merely not provided a means of effectively supplanting the massive scientific strides made in the hard sciences during that period.

When did I claim this?

You really can't effectively do science without the scientific method. But that is not to say that you cannot gain further understanding of a particular non-scientific field. General knowledge continues to be advanced in essentially every academic endeavor.

I agree.

 

[timtofly]

So why is it wrong to teach science as a world-view and religion as a world-view?

I don't think that it is wrong to teach science as a "world view", as long as subjective thought is not thrown out the door. I think that a balanced person should be both objective and subjective. I don't think that teaching religion as a "world view" is wise unless one can be objective about it.

Religion as subjective can never relate the same way equally to all, as Ziggy pointed out. What can be observed cannot be dismissed as opinion. Using the term right and wrong probably does not even fit in science. I think that if a person just relied on science they would miss out on a lot the "world" around them. If a person just relied on religion, they probably would not make great scientist.

 

[warpus]

So it is okay to teach religion and science as equal? Or even religion as better than science?

They are completely different constructs used for completely different purposes.

It'd be like teaching that apples and the Chinese cultural revolution are equal.

 

[Formaldehyde]

There are other soft sciences than sociology and psychology. I could just go "economics" and "political theory" and leave it at that, really. I'm not sure I can include history, but that's so heavily dependant on humanities that I'm not sure it's includable. Anthropology - whether that be a subsection of sociology or not is up to you - got a huge kick in the arse during the last century. There's paedagogics. Do I really need to exemplify how these fields have changed recently or do you think we still beat up children, fx, as we did in the first half of the 1900s?

Again, I stated that there has indeed been much progress in virtually all academic fields. But that hardly makes them science merely because they are lumped under a largely pretentious "soft science" banner by some.

Again, I personally think if they do not use the scientific method they can hardly be called science. YMMV.

I'm not sure you understand what I'm asking you about though. My question is: Do you think the sciences > other faculties? Because all of your answers seem arrogant and it surprises me, as I've never felt this vibe from you before. It's really unpleasant - you're just really on the offensive like I'm attacking the field of science with dirty liberal arts or something.

I fully understand what you have been asking, and I have been trying my utmost to convince you that I do not think anything of the sort. Yet you continue to persist in these absurd mischaracterizations of my views.

Science is hardly superior to any other academic endeavor merely because it uses the scientific method. It just makes it science instead of natural philosophy, as it was in the distant past.

And you seem to be the one on the offensive here, not me. I am merely trying to explain my own views, and why they are not the ones you continue to think they are.

When did I claim this?

No, I am the one who is claiming that. It is the essence of my position which I have clearly stated in this thread. It also directly disputes your assertion of my views above.

I agree.

Then please desist from these continuing attacks. They only lend fuel to Global Skeptic's posts.

 

[timtofly]

They are completely different constructs used for completely different purposes.

It'd be like teaching that apples and the Chinese cultural revolution are equal.

Are you saying that science should never have attempted to explain where we come from? Seems like your so called "religions" already answered that, and had moved on with their lives. A "different purpose" should include not touching what belongs to the other guy?

 

[Angst]

Me on the offensive? Well, it was you who after explaining your view who kept on bugging me for all sorts of answers for things I never claimed. Your claims of me attacking you are slightly offensive actually; I have prompted no provocation from you other than the first - who wished for you to explain yourself, not to argue with me or points that I never stated.

Seriously, you constantly treated me or my answers like I agreed with w/e Global Skeptic said - because I replied tiredly to a statement you made to his post? Yea, stop doing that. All I wanted to know was how you evaluated non-scientific fields, which you did in your last reply before insulting me for a bit.

srsly and then you made me type all rude things and .

can't we just go "ok we agree" and not bother about attacking points neither of us made?

 

[Leoreth]

So why is it wrong to teach science as a world-view and religion as a world-view?

Who says it would be wrong?

So it is okay to teach religion and science as equal? Or even religion as better than science?

These are all questions that cannot be answered in general. It depends on the context.

It is definitely not wrong to teach religion. Actually I think the strict refusal to teach religion in American schools is detrimental to the students' understanding of both religion and science.

In my opinion, it is wrong and misleading to teach religion in science classes, dressed up as science. Because science classes (like biology) exist not to teach scientism or science-as-a-world-view, but to teach the use of science as a tool as you say. We do so because this tool happens to be useful and it's in the interest of society that the next generation is capable of using it properly.

Schools should not "teach" (i.e. promote) world-views in any way.

 

[Formaldehyde]

What is clearly "wrong" is teaching ID in any science class under the pretense that it is a valid scientific substitute to evolution. But I wouldn't mind at all if it was mentioned in a comparative religion class.

 

[Global Skeptic]

What is clearly "wrong" is teaching ID in any science class under the pretense that it is a valid scientific substitute to evolution. But I wouldn't mind at all if it was mentioned in a comparative religion class.

Now you have to explain, what you mean be "wrong"?

 

[Global Skeptic]

...

These are all questions that cannot be answered in general. It depends on the context.

It is definitely not wrong to teach religion. Actually I think the strict refusal to teach religion in American schools is detrimental to the students' understanding of both religion and science.

In my opinion, it is wrong and misleading to teach religion in science classes, dressed up as science. Because science classes (like biology) exist not to teach scientism or science-as-a-world-view, but to teach the use of science as a tool as you say. We do so because this tool happens to be useful and it's in the interest of society that the next generation is capable of using it properly.

Schools should not "teach" (i.e. promote) world-views in any way.

You do promote a world-view, science should be taught as a tool because is useful for humans in general and you then turn around and claim teaching should not promote world-views.

 

[Crezth]

Now you have to explain, what you mean be "wrong"?

What do you mean by "explain?"

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yes and no to the "I know"

I take that as scientific proof that you are indeed a philosopher.

Also known under the scientific term: Bruce.

So words overlap between science and philosophy, notably knowledge and false, but in general true belongs to logic and philosophy in the broader sense. So science has nothing to do with truth. Truth is a "cat-fight" within philosophy and religion.

I usually shy away from absolute terms like truth. And I cringe when people use the term capitalised. (not in your case mind you, you started a sentence with it )

So why is it wrong to teach science as a world-view and religion as a world-view?

It's only wrong to teach them as similar sorts of world view. When religion sells itself as a scientific world view I believe that to be dishonest. Also on account of short changing religion. Which is why I'm puzzled that some believers are so desperate to enter the scientific stage.

So it is okay to teach religion and science as equal?

No, it's not. I'm assuming you mean teaching in a scholarly way.

When I teach someone religion, which is as you said a subjective subject, I cannot teach the subjective part. It has to be filled in by the student itself. And it might be completely different to my own experience. I do feel the term spirituality fits better in this regard. Teaching spirituality has the big disadvantage that it takes away the essential part of spirituality. It may be that someone can be taught to get in touch with it, but now we're entering a field I am completely unfamiliar with.

Science on the other hand is transferable. It has to be or it would not be science. That is why it can be taught as is.

Or even religion as better than science?

Better at what?

 

[Global Skeptic]

What do you mean by "explain?"

I didn't put wrong in "", Formaldehyde did. And since I didn't put explain in "", can you explain, why you did that?

 

[Global Skeptic]

...

You are good at this.

 

[Crezth]

I didn't put wrong in "", Formaldehyde did. And since I didn't put explain in "", can you explain, why you did that?

To delineate the string whose purpose and function I'd like identified.