I'm not a scientist man!

[Formaldehyde]

But then it's not the same theory anymore...

It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it can not be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself.

Again, that is clearly not what scientific theories do. There is no "ideology" or "belief system" to science other than objective reality and rational thought if one really wishes to torture the entire notion. There is nothing inherently dogmatic in the least about science, but I would agree that some try to treat it as though it is dogmatic and even some sort of substitute for religion.

In Denmark there was a 90s movement in movie making that created nonreligious dogma for the sake of movie making. It had nothing to do with religion.

I have no idea what you are referring to here, nor why you apparently think it has anything to do with science.

Oh, did I pee on your scientifically credible purity? I'm so sorry. But you know, perhaps the point was for people to stop weighing words by implicitly given meanings, perhaps read into what they mean in essence.

You are apparently "peeing" on something, or at least trying to do so. But, again, it certainly has nothing to do with science, much less my own opinions.

And again, I suggest you take your own advice for a welcome change. As for me, I am discussing what you have posted, not you.

 

[Angst]

Do you not think the methodical process of science - exemplarily the idea of the theory being based upon an observation which is then repeatingly tested through experimentation and lastly put against peer review - follows a set pattern which must be followed in order for that to be science? That's the only thing I call dogmatic because it has to follow a set process in order for science to exist.

I think the issue is that you understand dogma can only be theories but I understand dogma can be both. Note that I say "understand" - I think the issue here is merely a lingual one. In Danish, dogma usually refers to a set process or row of methods - a methology perhaps? I'm not sure how to phrase it.

I have no idea what you are referring to here, nor why you apparently think it has anything to do with science.

And you say I'm putting up strawmen? Stop being so defensive!

It was you who claimed dogma were inherently religious. I told you they were not exemplified by how nineties Danish movie making saw a movement with several dogma that had to be followed in order for these "dogma movies" to be "valid". Those movies had nothing to do with science, but I merely demonstrated that your claim that dogma had to be religious is just plain out wrong. Then I could go from there.

You are apparently "peeing" on something, or at least trying to do so. But, again, it certainly has nothing to do with science, much less my own opinions.

And again, I suggest you take your own advice for a welcome change. As for me, I am discussing what you have posted, not you.

You: "Don't mix inherently religious things in with science! It's corrupting!"

Me, annoyingly being rude, sorry about that, but: "Dogma aren't inherently religious and they aren't inherently bad."

I was a little prissy because your relationship with religion seemed a little strained, observing your well-phrased kneejerk reaction against the apparent horrors of enslaving methodology/whateverthetermis - something you, yourself, utilize. And I know my words here are weighed - enslaving sounds evil - but I think you put more bad into the concept of dogma than there really is room for. I mean, there's a reason science is done as is. Many reasons. Many good reasons.

And for the thing about change... That doesn't make any sense. I merely state things that I know right now, not things that I advocate should happen. I didn't define what dogma meant, I'm merely putting it out there.

But then again, I think it's just a language barrier.

 

[peter grimes]

Would not a dogma and a theory logically be used to mean the same thing by either group?

If one puts all their trust in either a dogma or a theory they have stopped any forward progression. NOT that either are wrong to have, but wrong to hold onto as if nothing else mattered.

The trust one puts in a scientific theory is strictly provisional - if new evidence comes to light that can't be accounted for within the theory, then an alternate theory may be closer to the truth. This is why science doesn't deal in absolutes - absolutes are dogmatic

Contrast that with a religious dogma that most people here are familiar with: Christianty's claim that the human Semite Jesus was the incarnation (lit: bodily manifestation of) their gods. That's referred to as dogma *because* there's no way to validate the claim, no way to refute it, no way to check it's accuracy. It must be accepted on faith alone, along with any other claims made in their Bible.

I sincerely doubt that Christians would abandon that bit of dogma if some sort of undeniable evidence were to arise that contradicted the biblical claim. THAT'S what dogma is (at least, the way I understand the word).

A theory can be dogmatic.

The scientific method is dogmatic.

Dogma doesn't necessiate a bad thing, really, it's just a strict preordained way of going about things.

This is not how I understand the word, but I could be wrong.

Yes and no. Science can be likened with at least one aspect of objective truth, namely having reality independently of the mind, so refuse that this is relevant and still answer this:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Science.html


Okay, can we observe that this subject have said this - yes, if you trust a video, where the subject says it.
Is what the subject says objective or subjective? Can we objectively observe "Science is the best tool ever devised for understanding how the world works"???
Objective or external observation requires that you can describe what you observe! So what does "Science is the best tool ever devised for understanding how the world works" look like???

Here is it is everyday words - you can observe that other humans talk about the meaning of life, but you can't see it. You can test/observe the range of answers, you will get if you ask people about the meaning of life, but you can't test the meaning of life, because there is nothing to observe.

So back to "Science is the best tool ever devised for understanding how the world works" and here it is as a reductio ad absurdum - Michael Shermer apparently understand something, he can't understand using science and understands that it means "Science is the best tool ever devised for understanding how the world works". Do you understand that??? He claims the following "Science is the best tool ever devised for understanding how the world works" for which it turns out that the claim is not science!
I know I have to pin it out - there is no observation to be done for we observe as a requirement for science, because it is not observable and thus not open to falsification. Notice the words - we have - if we have it, then it is not independent of the mind(s), because there is no we without minds or brains. It should read - Michael Shermer thinks/feels first person as an internal process that: "Science is the best tool ever devised for understanding how the world works".

There is a limit to we observe as science and the moment someone starts to the effect of - I think/feel that we observe makes sense - I will continue to claim that is non-science. It doesn't not meet the core basic requirement of being we observe observable.

I'm sure you put a lot of time and thought into your posts, but I have to be honest with you here: You don't make sense to me. You seem to be hung up on semantics and how words relate to each other - you are a dendrochronologist* examining the minutiae of the tree rings, while most people are busy building a lodge so we can have shelter, warmth, and protection from the elements.



*I have an immense amount of respect and admiration for dendrochronologists as well as wood engineers. I use this example specifically to illustrate how irrelevant the story of the tree's life is to the goal of building a shelter.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ok, if someone doesn't agree that science is the best method for understanding the world, can they please provide a better method? So far all I see is people outlining the limitation. We are aware of these. People point out there could be more to reality than the observable. We're aware of this.

What I don't see is people pointing out better methods. Or maybe I missed it.

 

[Borachio]

Science is surely the best method for understanding the bare physical reality of the world.

But is that all there is to the world?

What about my( and your) subjective experience of the world. Doesn't that have primacy over any scientific theory?

How much can science tell me how I should live my life?

What does science tell me I should value in the world?

 

[peter grimes]

Science is surely the best method for understanding the bare physical reality of the world.

But is that all there is to the world?

Whenever there is an investigation into that, the answer comes back a provisional "Yes".

The odd thing is, nature is far stranger than any human has ever imagined. There's no way we'd accept things like wave/particle duality, Heisenberg Uncertainty, General Relativiy; unless these things were verified by observational data.

New stuff might be discovered tomorrow, of course. But so far, the answer remains Yes.

 

[Borachio]

Ah right? Then my subjective experience of the world is susceptible to the scientific method?

This is a hopeless tangle of contradictions.

What does science tell me about how to life my life?

What does it tell me has value?

 

[peter grimes]

Ah right? Then my subjective experience of the world is susceptible to the scientific method?

This is a hopeless tangle of contradictions.

What does science tell me about how to life my life?

What does it tell me has value?

Your subjective experiences are definitely subject to analysis in a scientific way - that's what many psychologists and neurologists and their ilk do every day.

I don't see the contradiction.

Science can only tell you how to live your life in accordance with what we've discovered. Want to go to the moon? Well, that's going to cost you x joules of energy.

Want to make your spouse happy? Well, you should already know how to do that yourself - you should have been observing and her reactions to different situations this whole time! You don't have to rely exclusively on double blind experimental setups to reveal most of what makes a person happy

Value is completely irrelevant to this conversation. Value is whatever you attach to something yourself. I place almost no value on spending time watching television, but my wife does value that.

Perhaps you meant something different by the word?

I'm not sure, but it seems that your'e intentionally trying to make confusion where there shouldn't be any.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Science is surely the best method for understanding the bare physical reality of the world.

But is that all there is to the world?

Who knows?

What about my( and your) subjective experience of the world. Doesn't that have primacy over any scientific theory?

How much can science tell me how I should live my life?

What does science tell me I should value in the world?

So, tell us a non-scientific method that gives us understanding of this subjective stuff.

If there is none, the observable can be 0.01% of reality and science will still be the best method of understanding it.

 

[Borachio]

I'm sorry you might think I'm obfuscating. I'm not. I genuinely think science, and rationality in general has limits.

As for psychologists being scientists, I somehow doubt it.

It seems you're being unnecessarily simplistic and you want absolutely the entire subjective objective universe to be subject to rational scrutiny.

Now there may be something in that ambition. I suppose you might say I, and possibly you, am/are exploring the boundaries of this as we write. Probably not. This is just entertainment while your wife watches TV.

Science, it seems to me, tells me nothing about aesthetic appreciation, compassion or morality.

Nor about the sense of awe I experience in the knowledge of scientific discovery.
============================================================================================

The non-scientific method to examine your own experience is your own experience, Ziggy. That's a really baffling question, tbh.

edit: as for the subjective being only a tiny fraction of my world, I disagree. It seems to me to be 100% of my world. How about you?

 

[timtofly]

The trust one puts in a scientific theory is strictly provisional - if new evidence comes to light that can't be accounted for within the theory, then an alternate theory may be closer to the truth. This is why science doesn't deal in absolutes - absolutes are dogmatic

Contrast that with a religious dogma that most people here are familiar with: Christianty's claim that the human Semite Jesus was the incarnation (lit: bodily manifestation of) their gods. That's referred to as dogma *because* there's no way to validate the claim, no way to refute it, no way to check it's accuracy. It must be accepted on faith alone, along with any other claims made in their Bible.

I sincerely doubt that Christians would abandon that bit of dogma if some sort of undeniable evidence were to arise that contradicted the biblical claim. THAT'S what dogma is (at least, the way I understand the word).

Does this mean that we are in agreement then? Coming from "my side" though, does that mean you have "faith" / "trust" in science? Unless you go out and perform all those observations and test and what not yourself, you are just reading what another person wrote down?

I personally do not want the scientific method replaced. I think the biggest problem here is using the scientific method to explain things that cannot ever be understood outside of it's realm. Now one can deny, to themself, that no such area exist, but they cannot prove to others that it does not.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ok, a couple of things. Last things first.

I never said the subjective is a tiny fraction of the world. I said "the observable can be 0.01% of reality", I said that even in the case that the observable is a tiny fraction, etc etc. When you asked: is that all, I replied: "Who knows?". That wasn't some easy two words to dismiss your question, that was an actual question. If we cannot even be certain of the existence, how can we possibly say we understand it?

Second, I know science has limits! I keep repeating it has limits. Two posts ago: "So far all I see is people outlining the limitation. We are aware of these." If anyone else is going to tell me science has limits I will punch him or her through the monitor. It may not be possible in the universe we live in but I will strive to find a non-objective reality where this is possible.

Third, I don't want to apply objective methods to subjective experience. I have repeatedly stated this is impossible due to the nature of the subjective. I also hinted methods may not even be applicable to the subjective because of it's subjective nature.

Lastly, the claim is: Science is the best method of understanding this universe. I would not call a personal experience a method, since it is without any system or set of procedures which a method requires. It was Peter I think who opted that science is not only the best, but possibly the only method to get an understanding of the universe. Which makes the trophy of Best Method quite hollow, but still true.

Even so, if I were to accept personal experiences as a method, which I don't, the diversity of personal experiences, often contradicting each other signifies to me that we can't get a lot of understanding out of it with regard to the Universe, the highest goal it seems to be able to reach is insight in how we perceive the universe. But this perception is highly suspect, which makes it inferior to the scientific method of understanding the universe. Again, if I were to accept personal experiences as a method, which I don't.

So, once more. If science is not the best method, what is?

 

[Angst]

Just to be a pain in the butt:

How does science help you understand a poem?

I'm pretty sure I know what you'll answer, and if so it is what I'm fishing for - something I agree with.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Just to be a pain in the butt:

How does science help you understand a poem?

I'm pretty sure I know what you'll answer, and if so it is what I'm fishing for - something I agree with.

It can help putting a background on the poet for instance. If you'd like to understand the poet's intent if he or she isn't available. But I'm guessing you're aiming at the experience of reading a poem. In that case it's pretty useless. So, yeah, I think it can help if you want it to. But it can be a hindrance as well. Just ask Wagner. Knowing his background might make you appreciate his work less, and it may even rob you of a certain type of experience. Not knowing it might make you appreciate the music for what it is. Sometimes ignorance is bliss, but ... ignorance is also the opposite of understanding.

 

[Angst]

You said something else than I expected you to.

Biography is not science!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, to be honest, at 12:30 AM I didn't spend a whole lot of thought on the answer.

 

[peter grimes]

Just to be a pain in the butt:

How does science help you understand a poem?

Just to be a pain in the butt, I'll take the bait

What if it were demonstrated that when reading, say The Raven, certain areas of peoples' brains showed increased activity. But when reading Emily Dickinson, completely different areas were active?

That would be interesting, no?

Someday it's not impossible to imagine that we'll be able to say with some confidence what is happening with certain emergent patterns of neuronal activity - pure speculation, of course. But the Ask a Neuroscientist thread could fill you in more. He's actually at the forefront of this area of research.

 

[Borachio]

I'm completely lost now. I've lost the thread of this thread.

So, what's the difference between rationality and the scientific method? Is there a difference?

And what's the difference between rationality and common sense?

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm completely lost now. I've lost the thread of this thread.

So, what's the difference between rationality and the scientific method? Is there a difference?

And what's the difference between rationality and common sense?

The thread has become, yet again, an exercise in the religion of science. It's fine, there are a lot of websites on the internet where members of other religions gather to pat themselves on the back about how smart and right they are.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

What don't you get about #572? Since I believe that's what this thread's subject turned into.

Crossposted by obnoxiouness. Great.