Anti-Science

[Chumblywumbly]

I'm not saying Dawkins believes religious people are inherently immoral, but he has IIRC stated that religion is inherently dangerous.

Any sort of dogmatic view that is not amenable to argument or questioning does present inherent dangers.

Good thing religion isn't necessarily like that then, eh?

[Getbrett]

I'm not saying Dawkins believes religious people are inherently immoral, but he has IIRC stated that religion is inherently dangerous.

Any sort of dogmatic view that is not amenable to argument or questioning does present inherent dangers.

Good thing religion isn't necessarily like that then, eh?

I'm quite sure that Dawkins is anti-dogma rather than specifically anti-religion. He scorns faith, but not necessarily the faithful, iirc.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I'm not saying Dawkins believes religious people are inherently immoral, but he has IIRC stated that religion is inherently dangerous.

Any sort of dogmatic view that is not amenable to argument or questioning does present inherent dangers.

Good thing religion isn't necessarily like that then, eh?

Are most religious people open to the possibility that they could be wrong? No, religion isn't absolutely necessarily like that, but I wonder what the proportions of religious people who are open to being wrong versus not open to being wrong are.

[Chumblywumbly]

Are most religious people open to the possibility that they could be wrong? No, religion isn't absolutely necessarily like that, but I wonder what the proportions of religious people who are open to being wrong versus not open to being wrong are.

Who knows... but there's certainly plenty of people who change their views on religion throughout their life.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Any sort of dogmatic view that is not amenable to argument or questioning does present inherent dangers.

And this is true for any overly simplistic worship of "science" as an end rather than a means.

Especially when the debate as to what is and is not science is as open to argument and questioning as anything else.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Any sort of dogmatic view that is not amenable to argument or questioning does present inherent dangers.

And this is true for any overly simplistic worship of "science" as an end rather than a means.

Especially when the debate as to what is and is not science is as open to argument and questioning as anything else.

Did I ever say that science is to be worshiped? No, I said that science is absolutely necessary for our way of life, and for the length of our lives. I defended the power of science to change as new evidence comes along as a strength of science. I said that science is the most important thing we have in today's world. Does that mean that I believe we should worship science? No, especially because by worshiping science, you cease to do it properly. Saying that the position that science is the most important thing in today's world is worship of science is like saying that the position that securing food and water was the most vital and important thing to hunter-gatherer tribes equates to food worship.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Any sort of dogmatic view that is not amenable to argument or questioning does present inherent dangers.

And this is true for any overly simplistic worship of "science" as an end rather than a means.

Especially when the debate as to what is and is not science is as open to argument and questioning as anything else.

Did I ever say that science is to be worshiped? No, I said that science is absolutely necessary for our way of life, and for the length of our lives. I defended the power of science to change as new evidence comes along as a strength of science. I said that science is the most important thing we have in today's world. Does that mean that I believe we should worship science? No, especially because by worshiping science, you cease to do it properly. Saying that the position that science is the most important thing in today's world is worship of science is like saying that the position that securing food and water was the most vital and important thing to hunter-gatherer tribes equates to food worship.

*sigh*

Your semantic distinctions is correct. You haven't literally said we should worship "science." You have acted like this undefined subject should be worshipped.

Do I really need to list every post you've made that borders on unquestioned devotion to "science"? For example, your OP declaration that those that don't study in college what you consider science are "jealous" and therefore "anti-science."

I take it you still haven't studied Philosophy of Science and have little clue as to what is or is not "science."

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

*sigh*

Your semantic distinctions is correct. You haven't literally said we should worship "science." You have acted like this undefined subject should be worshipped.

Do I really need to list every post you've made that borders on unquestioned devotion to "science"? For example, your OP declaration that those that don't study in college what you consider science are "jealous" and therefore "anti-science."

I take it you still haven't studied Philosophy of Science and have little clue as to what is or is not "science."

While there is some trouble with defining what counts as scientific on the borderline (i.e. all definitions of science have open boundary conditions), ultimately time tells what counts as legitimate science and what does not. If a particular "fringe" notion never has any evidence to support it, even after years of study in areas where one would expect some evidence, this notion is then relegated to the realm of non-science. For examples, let's look at astrology and alchemy. They did and still do make falsifiable predictions and, in a sense, are testable. However, all of the tests of astrology have shown either no evidence at all or actual refutations of astrology's predictions. All tests for alchemy have either become placed parts of it into accepted chemistry, or been thrown parts into the annals of historical bad ideas. Ultimately, it comes down to evidence. Right now, the large hadron collider has the potential to make or break at least some versions of string theory. String theory is essentially on the fringe as to what counts as science, at present. It's not really very useful to classify whether something on the fringe is scientific or not, as time will eventually demonstrate which category it belongs to. There is no real function in exactly categorizing fringe elements.

[The Cat-Tribe]

I take it you still haven't studied Philosophy of Science and have little clue as to what is or is not "science."

While there is some trouble with defining what counts as scientific on the borderline (i.e. all definitions of science have open boundary conditions), ultimately time tells what counts as legitimate science and what does not. If a particular "fringe" notion never has any evidence to support it, even after years of study in areas where one would expect some evidence, this notion is then relegated to the realm of non-science. For examples, let's look at astrology and alchemy. They did and still do make falsifiable predictions and, in a sense, are testable. However, all of the tests of astrology have shown either no evidence at all or actual refutations of astrology's predictions. All tests for alchemy have either become placed parts of it into accepted chemistry, or been thrown parts into the annals of historical bad ideas. Ultimately, it comes down to evidence. Right now, the large hadron collider has the potential to make or break at least some versions of string theory. String theory is essentially on the fringe as to what counts as science, at present. It's not really very useful to classify whether something on the fringe is scientific or not, as time will eventually demonstrate which category it belongs to. There is no real function in exactly categorizing fringe elements.

I'll put that down as a "yes, I can't define science."

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I'll put that down as a "yes, I can't define science."

Fine, consider it a pointless semantic victory if you want. I said science has open boundary conditions, in other words, there is no way to specifically tell whether or not something near the boundary is on one side or the other. That doesn't mean that there is difficulty in separating all science from all non-science. Methinks you don't understand what I was referring to when I said "open" in reference to the boundaries of science.

[The Cat-Tribe]

I'll put that down as a "yes, I can't define science."

Fine, consider it a pointless semantic victory if you want. I said science has open boundary conditions, in other words, there is no way to specifically tell whether or not something near the boundary is on one side or the other. That doesn't mean that there is difficulty in separating all science from all non-science. Methinks you don't understand what I was referring to when I said "open" in reference to the boundaries of science.

Isn't it kind of silly to say "X is the most important thing we have in today's world" when you can't define "X"?

Perhaps your hubris needs some perspective. Not all wisdom is "science" and not all "science" is wise.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Perhaps your hubris needs some perspective. Not all wisdom is "science" and not all "science" is wise.

Please look up what open means with respect to mathematics. I don't want to keep having to explain to you how we can clearly define certain things as scientific and other things as clearly unscientific while things on the boundaries remain difficult. Given that it's not even useful to the advancement of scientific pursuits to delineate things near the boundary, I don't really see why this is a victory for you. This seems nothing more than ego masturbation.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Perhaps your hubris needs some perspective. Not all wisdom is "science" and not all "science" is wise.

Please look up what open means with respect to mathematics. I don't want to keep having to explain to you how we can clearly define certain things as scientific and other things as clearly unscientific while things on the boundaries remain difficult. Given that it's not even useful to the advancement of scientific pursuits to delineate things near the boundary, I don't really see why this is a victory for you. This seems nothing more than ego masturbation.

Boundaries being difficult I undestand and can sympathize with.

But where, pray tell, did you give even an inkling of a definition of "science"?

Go read some Popper, Hume, Kuhn, Feyeraband, etc., before you label those of us that question your labels as merely "jealous" or "ego masturbat[ors]."

I believe generally in science. I also recognize that "science" is an amorphous concept that can be misused as easily as "faith."

And, as I said, not all wisdom is science and not all science is wise.

[Dyakovo]

Oh really? Dawkins is an agnostic atheist. I'd be amused to read a list of what you consider differences in your theological positions.

Uhh, no he isn't...
Dawkins is an explicit atheist and a rather militant one at that.
Among the things he believes that quite a number of atheists do not agree with:

Dawkins believes that religion is incompatible with science

snippet from wikipedia

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Perhaps your hubris needs some perspective. Not all wisdom is "science" and not all "science" is wise.

Please look up what open means with respect to mathematics. I don't want to keep having to explain to you how we can clearly define certain things as scientific and other things as clearly unscientific while things on the boundaries remain difficult. Given that it's not even useful to the advancement of scientific pursuits to delineate things near the boundary, I don't really see why this is a victory for you. This seems nothing more than ego masturbation.

Boundaries being difficult I undestand and can sympathize with.

But where, pray tell, did you give even an inkling of a definition of "science"?

Go read some Popper, Hume, Kuhn, Feyeraband, etc., before you label those of us that question your labels as merely "jealous" or "ego masturbat[ors]."

I believe generally in science. I also recognize that "science" is an amorphous concept that can be misused as easily as "faith."

And, as I said, not all wisdom is science and not all science is wise.

I'm familiar with Popper's notion of falsifiability, Hume's idea that induction is essentially not a form of reason, Feyerabend's damn-near postmodernist solipsism, and Kuhn's idea of strict delineations between science and non-science as impossible.

I see no reason to disagree with Popper, I see Hume as grossly misunderstanding probability (even the most intelligent of individuals often do this, so this is no condemnation of his intelligence), Feyerabend as advocating epistemological hedonism, and Kuhn as exaggerating the problems of delineation which really only exist on the boundaries.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Please look up what open means with respect to mathematics. I don't want to keep having to explain to you how we can clearly define certain things as scientific and other things as clearly unscientific while things on the boundaries remain difficult. Given that it's not even useful to the advancement of scientific pursuits to delineate things near the boundary, I don't really see why this is a victory for you. This seems nothing more than ego masturbation.

Boundaries being difficult I undestand and can sympathize with.

But where, pray tell, did you give even an inkling of a definition of "science"?

Go read some Popper, Hume, Kuhn, Feyeraband, etc., before you label those of us that question your labels as merely "jealous" or "ego masturbat[ors]."

I believe generally in science. I also recognize that "science" is an amorphous concept that can be misused as easily as "faith."

And, as I said, not all wisdom is science and not all science is wise.

I'm familiar with Popper's notion of falsifiability, Hume's idea that induction is essentially not a form of reason, Feyerabend's damn-near postmodernist solipsism, and Kuhn's idea of strict delineations between science and non-science as impossible.

I see no reason to disagree with Popper, I see Hume as grossly misunderstanding probability (even the most intelligent of individuals often do this, so this is no condemnation of his intelligence), Feyerabend as advocating epistemological hedonism, and Kuhn as exaggerating the problems of delineation which really only exist on the boundaries.

Although I don't agree with your characterizations, I'm honestly impressed you have some clue as to the philosophy of science. What I can't reconcile is your apparent knowledge in this area with your overly simplistic notions of "science" vs. "anti-science."

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Boundaries being difficult I undestand and can sympathize with.

But where, pray tell, did you give even an inkling of a definition of "science"?

Go read some Popper, Hume, Kuhn, Feyeraband, etc., before you label those of us that question your labels as merely "jealous" or "ego masturbat[ors]."

I believe generally in science. I also recognize that "science" is an amorphous concept that can be misused as easily as "faith."

And, as I said, not all wisdom is science and not all science is wise.

Also, what exactly constitutes "wisdom?" Why should I be concerned with it, and, to play your own game back at you, if you can't give a closed-boundary condition definition of wisdom, then how can you consider it "the most important thing?"

[Hydesland]

I see no reason to disagree with Popper

Many do, many authorities on this subject see falsification as not absolutely essential, at least in the sense Popper and Flew thought of it.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Boundaries being difficult I undestand and can sympathize with.

But where, pray tell, did you give even an inkling of a definition of "science"?

Go read some Popper, Hume, Kuhn, Feyeraband, etc., before you label those of us that question your labels as merely "jealous" or "ego masturbat[ors]."

I believe generally in science. I also recognize that "science" is an amorphous concept that can be misused as easily as "faith."

And, as I said, not all wisdom is science and not all science is wise.

Also, what exactly constitutes "wisdom?" Why should I be concerned with it, and, to play your own game back at you, if you can't give a closed-boundary condition definition of wisdom, then how can you consider it "the most important thing?"

Nice try. I'm not the one saying "X is the most important thing" or that people's views fall neatly into pro-X or anti-X.

Values are not easily defined. Whether science has value depends on factors beyond science.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Although I don't agree with your characterizations, I'm honestly impressed you have some clue as to the philosophy of science. What I can't reconcile is your apparent knowledge in this area with your overly simplistic notions of "science" vs. "anti-science."

Hume really lived before the times of probability theory being well-defined, so all notions of the definitions of probability were essentially naive. In science, probability is used in two distinct ways. For the most part, probability is a mathematical and quantitative treatment of certainty. (i.e. The question "What are the chances that this is true?" doesn't literally mean that the truth of a specific claim is probabilistic, it actually means "Given what we know at present, how certain can we be that claim x is true?") Only in quantum theory does there exist the more basic idea of probability. Based on our knowledge right now, it seems that what happens on the quantum level really is probabilistic. Probability theory allows us to treat both actual probabilities and codifications of certainty in the same way.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Although I don't agree with your characterizations, I'm honestly impressed you have some clue as to the philosophy of science. What I can't reconcile is your apparent knowledge in this area with your overly simplistic notions of "science" vs. "anti-science."

Hume really lived before the times of probability theory being well-defined, so all notions of the definitions of probability were essentially naive. In science, probability is used in two distinct ways. For the most part, probability is a mathematical and quantitative treatment of certainty. (i.e. The question "What are the chances that this is true?" doesn't literally mean that the truth of a specific claim is probabilistic, it actually means "Given what we know at present, how certain can we be that claim x is true?") Only in quantum theory does there exist the more basic idea of probability. Based on our knowledge right now, it seems that what happens on the quantum level really is probabilistic. Probability theory allows us to treat both actual probabilities and codifications of certainty in the same way.

Interesting. Perhaps true. But non-responsive.

Can't we just agree that science as generally understood is important, but is not an end in itself?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Nice try. I'm not the one saying "X is the most important thing" or that people's views fall neatly into pro-X or anti-X.

Values are not easily defined. Whether science has value depends on factors beyond science.

Other than the definition of value as the value of a constant or variable, value seems to be an entirely human concept. I value science because I value understanding and because I value the comfort-filled, convenient, and disease-free (relatively speaking, of course) life that science offers. If there are those who don't value any of those things on any level, then I suppose they won't value science at all, though you'd be hard pressed to find someone that didn't value ANY of those things.

[No Names Left Damn It]

Uhh, no he isn't...
Dawkins is an explicit atheist and a rather militant one at that.

According to the God Delusion, he acknowledges the fact that there may be a God, but lives his life on the assumption there isn't. You're wrong.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Interesting. Perhaps true. But non-responsive.

Can't we just agree that science as generally understood is important, but is not an end in itself?

Considering that a lot of scientists are in science for the sake of understanding, I don't see how science isn't an end in itself. I'm not going into it because it is practically useful, nor am I going into it for the money, obviously. I'm going into for the sake of knowledge and understanding.

[Dyakovo]

Uhh, no he isn't...
Dawkins is an explicit atheist and a rather militant one at that.

According to the God Delusion, he acknowledges the fact that there may be a God, but lives his life on the assumption there isn't. You're wrong.

OK, never read that, based my statement on what I have heard him say...