I'm not a scientist man!

[Leoreth]

You seem to think that the decision to regard the use of the scientific method as socially useful has to be grounded in the scientific method itself.

I don't see why.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So back to "I think we ought to teach that science is one kind of tool and it is the best for its part of reality". So if you can't use a hammer like a screwdriver, you should be able to explain where you can't use science in practice and explain what you then do.
That is one of the purposes of humanities, the soft sciences and philosophy as a part of this. In short and as a "slogan" - reality is subjective and objective. Or if you like as hard, naturalistic, positive science - science is the best tool, we have. Maybe, just maybe, then that is a nonsense claim, because if science is a limited tool, then how can it be the best tool, if you can't operate/work/be in reality without other tools???

I'm going to have to disagree here. I do think science is the best tool, even though it's limited.

The other tools you refer to do not have the same level of conclusiveness in their field as science has in it's field. In fact I may even go as far as to claim that science is the only tool, dependent on how we define 'tool'. Sure it becomes useless in certain areas, but the tools used for those other areas have the same restriction and they are less reliable, dependable, uniform, predictable than science is for it's field.

Sure, science has the easier field to work with due to it's unchanging nature, so you could argue that in subjective fields, a tool of similar worth would be lacking. But I do feel that the subjective reality has so little constants that it's near impossible to create a single tool. Which is why I state that science is the only tool. The tools in other fields are works in progress and very much in the experimental stage with little result to show for. And the question is whether it's even possible to be able to create a tool.

So, I feel that objective reality is a field that lends itself to be analyzed, and therefore a tool such as science can be applied. Other realities are too shifty and undefined to be able to apply any kind of universal method to it.

 

[Global Skeptic]

You seem to think that the decision to regard the use of the scientific method as socially useful has to be grounded in the scientific method itself.

I don't see why.

Okay, so who is this we in your previous post and what do you use, if you don't use science?

So I think we should teach objective thinking, critical thinking and skepticism and science as a part of that. [dark irony]And if you don't think that, then you are wrong[/dark irony]

 

[Borachio]

I'm confused. (Not for the first time.)

Does objectivity really exist in any meaningful sense? Can it be firmly demonstrated to exist?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm confused. (Not for the first time.)

Join the club, there's about a 16 billion member base.

Does objectivity really exist in any meaningful sense? Can it be firmly demonstrated to exist?

Sure it can. And it has many times. Whenever a design for an airplane is communicated, build and takes off for instance.

 

[Borachio]

Ah, but that's just collective subjectivity. Just because a group of people agree that such and such has taken place, does this demonstrate it's a reality?

(This is just a guess.)

 

[Global Skeptic]

I'm confused. (Not for the first time.)

Does objectivity really exist in any meaningful sense? Can it be firmly demonstrated to exist?

No, not for all of reality - objectivity is a state between a subject and an object. Objective only exists in relationship to subjective.

 

[El_Machinae]

Again, tool for what? I don't know the best tool by which to help people actualize happy and moral lives. Religion is one of those tools, for sure, but I don't know if religion is the best tool. As well, of the religions, I have no idea which religion would be the best for that stated goal (happiness and moral living)

 

[Leoreth]

Okay, so who is this we in your previous post and what do you use, if you don't use science?

If you thought this was a "we" versus "you" discussion, I think I see where our disagreement stems from.

"We" isn't science, but society. And what does it matter what they use to come to a decision?

So I think we should teach objective thinking, critical thinking and skepticism and science as a part of that. [dark irony]And if you don't think that, then you are wrong[/dark irony]

I don't disagree with that. Why do you think I do?

(It's getting tiring to defend myself from accusations you make up without basis in my previous posts. Again, it seems as if you're used to argue against a specific position that I have never actually voiced.)

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

On the other hand, it's beginning to become increasingly tempting to adopt that position.

 

[peter grimes]

I'm going to have to disagree here. I do think science is the best tool, even though it's limited.

The other tools you refer to do not have the same level of conclusiveness in their field as science has in it's field. In fact I may even go as far as to claim that science is the only tool, dependent on how we define 'tool'. Sure it becomes useless in certain areas, but the tools used for those other areas have the same restriction and they are less reliable, dependable, uniform, predictable than science is for it's field.

Sure, science has the easier field to work with due to it's unchanging nature, so you could argue that in subjective fields, a tool of similar worth would be lacking. But I do feel that the subjective reality has so little constants that it's near impossible to create a single tool. Which is why I state that science is the only tool. The tools in other fields are works in progress and very much in the experimental stage with little result to show for. And the question is whether it's even possible to be able to create a tool.

So, I feel that objective reality is a field that lends itself to be analyzed, and therefore a tool such as science can be applied. Other realities are too shifty and undefined to be able to apply any kind of universal method to it.

To expand on this a bit further, the tool of science has been growing larger and more versatile ever since it was first adopted. There was a time only 50 years ago when there was doubt that we would ever be able to see what was happening inside a living eukaryotic cell in situ in real time. Now we can even watch individual neurons firing!

Religiously ecstatic experiences were only the purview of the spiritualists - but now we can induce them at will.

The more science examines, the more phenomena come under it's gaze, the more we learn about the universe.

For my money, science is the only tool for finding this stuff out.

 

[Borachio]

You mean things like inducing a sensation of a "presence" using infra sound?

 

[Global Skeptic]

I'm going to have to disagree here. I do think science is the best tool, even though it's limited.

The other tools you refer to do not have the same level of conclusiveness in their field as science has in it's field. In fact I may even go as far as to claim that science is the only tool, dependent on how we define 'tool'. Sure it becomes useless in certain areas, but the tools used for those other areas have the same restriction and they are less reliable, dependable, uniform, predictable than science is for it's field.

Sure, science has the easier field to work with due to it's unchanging nature, so you could argue that in subjective fields, a tool of similar worth would be lacking. But I do feel that the subjective reality has so little constants that it's near impossible to create a single tool. Which is why I state that science is the only tool. The tools in other fields are works in progress and very much in the experimental stage with little result to show for. And the question is whether it's even possible to be able to create a tool.

So, I feel that objective reality is a field that lends itself to be analyzed, and therefore a tool such as science can be applied. Other realities are too shifty and undefined to be able to apply any kind of universal method to it.

So you are subjectively stating that objective is better.

 

[Crezth]

So you are subjectively stating that objective is better.

What other measure of "better" could there be?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So you are subjectively stating that objective is better.

Not exactly. I am keeping the option open that I overlooked an objective fact. And I'm happy to admit I'm wrong in case I am presented with that fact or pointed at a part of my reasoning that is faulty.

The scientific approach you know. Best reasoning I can come up with until new insight is presented to me

 

[Global Skeptic]

To some of you, but not all of you.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective
1 b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind...
3 a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

1 b is not the same as 3 a, 3 a is a subjective state of a given brain, which for a period of time is objective(3a). It is not possible as far as I can tell for any cognitively and emotionally functioning human to remain objective(3 a) for ever.
In other words science can teach you to construct a scalpel, but it can't tell you, what you ought to use it to.

So all this about science is the best tool we have is itself - science is the best tool, we have - not science. "Science is the best tool, we have" is non-science! It should read, we can observe that there is a group of test subjects, which reports 1st person: "Science is the best tool, we have!"

So again explain with science alone this:
Someone: "Science is the best tool, we have!"
Someone else: "No!"

 

[Global Skeptic]

Not exactly. I am keeping the option open that I overlooked an objective fact. And I'm happy to admit I'm wrong in case I am presented with that fact or pointed at a part of my reasoning that is faulty.

The scientific approach you know. Best reasoning I can come up with until new insight is presented to me

First off - it is not an objective fact as having reality independently of the mind, that reasoning can be faulty.
More later.

 

[Global Skeptic]

To expand on this a bit further, the tool of science has been growing larger and more versatile ever since it was first adopted. There was a time only 50 years ago when there was doubt that we would ever be able to see what was happening inside a living eukaryotic cell in situ in real time. Now we can even watch individual neurons firing!

Religiously ecstatic experiences were only the purview of the spiritualists - but now we can induce them at will.

The more science examines, the more phenomena come under it's gaze, the more we learn about the universe.

For my money, science is the only tool for finding this stuff out.

Yes, sort of, but to do that also requires 1st person usage:
Google cognitive dissonant and cognitive bias and you will notice something - a limited social bias is the belief that we, humans, are logic, rational and objective. [IRONY]Or at least me and not you, as it is mostly used.[/IRONY]
But logic, rationality and objectivity all have in part an irreducible subjective element.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

First off - it is not an objective fact as having reality independently of the mind, that reasoning can be faulty.
More later.

Mind you I said it's possible I overlooked an objective fact, not that my reasoning resulted in one.

edit: At second reading, how does "as objective as I am able to" sound to you?

 

[timtofly]

To expand on this a bit further, the tool of science has been growing larger and more versatile ever since it was first adopted. There was a time only 50 years ago when there was doubt that we would ever be able to see what was happening inside a living eukaryotic cell in situ in real time. Now we can even watch individual neurons firing!

Religiously ecstatic experiences were only the purview of the spiritualists - but now we can induce them at will.

The more science examines, the more phenomena come under it's gaze, the more we learn about the universe.

For my money, science is the only tool for finding this stuff out.

So you are for taking away a human's personhood, and only allowing the objective forces of science guide them? Only science can dictate which neurons are firing and for what reason?

I think that science is a great tool, and one of the best out there. I don't think that it will ever replace the subjective unless you take away every ones ability to be themselves.

Hasn't sex and drugs already beat science to reproducing your so called religiously ecstatic experiences? Now science may be more objective than most people's subjective encounter with either. Personnally, I reject both science and religion to determine how to live my life.

@ Global Skeptic

1b and 3a are the same, but different ways of expressing objective. Neither allow one's personal bias into the equation.

I am not arguing against you. I would prefer your view over doing away with the subjective altogether as some here are seeming to do. Instead of being objective, they are letting their personal bias cloud their judgment.