Science is bad!

[The Norseman]

So here is an example from science; take a sufficiently large group of adults, brain-scan them while you give them individually the following ethical dilemma. You are hiding together with other people from a group of soldiers, who in all likelihood will kill you all if they find you all. Now in your arms you have your newborn baby. Do you choose to smother your baby in order for you to lessen the chance of the soldiers finding of you?!!

What answer does Christianity give?

What answer does hinduism give?

What answer does buddhism give?

Are they all correct answers? If only one is correct, how do you tell that it is such?

 

[Loss Leader]

I got your attention, right?!!

Well, I leave science be for a moment and claim something else.

Me: Religion is bad!
Someone: How do you know that?
Me: Religion does more bad than good!
Someone: How do you know that?
Me: The world would be a better place if we replaced religion with science!
Someone: How do you know that? Who is that we? With what authority do you speak as a we and for all the world? How do you intend to replace religion? Can science do normative claims?

That's one heck of an argument you're having with yourself. I hope you win.

 

[fuelair]

You are not aware, young Padawan...



And...



From whence those quotes? A philosophical gibberish generator. Looks deep and meaningful, means nothing. Like philosophy!

Amazingly, some people still think philosophy means something. Science replaced religion and philosophy some time back. They are still cute and can be used for amusement and ridicule, but there endeth their function.

 

[abaddon]

Amazingly, some people still think philosophy means something. Science replaced religion and philosophy some time back. They are still cute and can be used for amusement and ridicule, but there endeth their function.

Yup. I refreshed the gibberish generator and got...

Today, science tells us that the essence of nature is rebirth. To walk the circuit is to become one with it.

We must learn how to lead mythic lives in the face of dogma.

...pure philosophy.

 

[HansMustermann]

Amazingly, some people still think philosophy means something. Science replaced religion and philosophy some time back. They are still cute and can be used for amusement and ridicule, but there endeth their function.

I wouldn't say that science replaced philosophy, since it's a branch of philosophy, essentially. But yeah, some branches are more valid than others, while some produce giggles even among professors of philosophy.

I don't think that what we have here is as much philosophy, as just the usual act of trying to disprove skepticism by misunderstanding and misrepresenting it (no, rejecting logic and reason doesn't make one a real skeptic that gets to lecture the other supposedly fake skeptics), with some pretense of philosophy sprinkled in.

I wouldn't use it as a reason to reject philosophy in toto, any more than I'd use Jack the Ripper as a reason to reject surgery.

 

[tsig]

I wouldn't say that science replaced philosophy, since it's a branch of philosophy, essentially. But yeah, some branches are more valid than others, while some produce giggles even among professors of philosophy.

I don't think that what we have here is as much philosophy, as just the usual act of trying to disprove skepticism by misunderstanding and misrepresenting it (no, rejecting logic and reason doesn't make one a real skeptic that gets to lecture the other supposedly fake skeptics), with some pretense of philosophy sprinkled in.

I wouldn't use it as a reason to reject philosophy in toto, any more than I'd use Jack the Ripper as a reason to reject surgery.

Can you link to any examples of valid branches of philosophy?

 

[HansMustermann]

Given the topic... epistemology? Essentially if you've ever argued stuff like that 'just knowing Jesus' or 'just knowing one is right' doesn't really count as knowledge, or as a valid way of acquiring knowledge, you've already argued epistemology.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Yup. I refreshed the gibberish generator and got...
...pure philosophy.

You are confusing philosophy with mysticism.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Can you link to any examples of valid branches of philosophy?

Here is one that most JREF posters will enjoy.

 

[tsig]

Here is one that most JREF posters will enjoy.

Today, some thinkers seek to ground science in axiomatic assumptions such as the uniformity of nature. The majority of philosophers of science, however, take a coherentist approach to science in which a theory is validated if it makes sense of observations as part of a coherent whole. Still others, and Paul Feyerabend in particular, argue that there is no such thing as the "scientific method", so all approaches to science should be allowed, including explicitly supernatural ones. Another approach to thinking about science is to study how knowledge is created from a sociological perspective. Finally, there is a tradition in Continental philosophy which approaches science from the perspective of a rigorous analysis of human experience.


Any "philosophy of science" that allows the supernatural in the door isn't science.

While philosophers flail about trying to figure out what scientists do the scientists just go about doing it.

If there was a philosophy of railroading the philosophers would still be trying to figure out what powered a steam locomotive.

 

[tsig]

You are confusing philosophy with mysticism.

Today, some thinkers seek to ground science in axiomatic assumptions such as the uniformity of nature. The majority of philosophers of science, however, take a coherentist approach to science in which a theory is validated if it makes sense of observations as part of a coherent whole. Still others, and Paul Feyerabend in particular, argue that there is no such thing as the "scientific method", so all approaches to science should be allowed, including explicitly supernatural ones. Another approach to thinking about science is to study how knowledge is created from a sociological perspective. Finally, there is a tradition in Continental philosophy which approaches science from the perspective of a rigorous analysis of human experience.

Well someone is.

 

[HansMustermann]

Actually, I'd argue that any philosophy or application of science should not introduce arbitrary distinctions. There is no reason to introduce an arbitrary exclusion against stuff that is currently considered supernatural. It just excludes itself naturally by failing to produce evidence and/or failing Occam. But there is no reason to actually confirm the accusation of just refusing to even consider some stuff, by actually refusing to even consider some stuff.

Or to put it simpler, I'm with Randi on this one. If someone can produce evidence of telepathy, dowsing, or whatever, I'm totally going to consider their evidence and change my mind about it, provided that the evidence actually supports it.

That said, Paul Feyerabend WAS an anti-science and pretty much anti-intellectual nutcase, and rather fringe at that. And I'd really take anyone's quoting him as 'what the philosophers think about science'.

I'd also urge against confusing philosophy with METAphilosophy. E.g., in the case of our friend Tommy, against confusing epistemology with meta-epistemology. Epistemology is the study of knowledge, and valid methods of obtaining knowledge. Meta-epistemology is the study of the study of that.

If anyone went "heh" at that point, my response would be: yeah, exactly.

At any rate, that's where you get such twaddle as 'how do you know that your method for evaluating methods to obtain knowledge isn't based on some assumption you don't even know about.' It's also rife with irrelevant twaddle about brains working differently, as if that made falsehoods just as justified in being called knowledge, as our friend Tommy demostrated, and so on.

The main problem with it is that many take it as an invitation to do for philosophy, what dadaism did for art. To wit, dadaism was a movement emphasizing nonsense -- literally involving stuff like writing a story by cutting words from a newspaper, putting them into a hat, and literally drawing random words out of the hat -- to make you question your assumptions about art, and about what it really art. Meta-philosophy tends to do nonsense to make you question your assumptions about philosophy or the assumptions used in philosophy.

If anything, it's not as much an argument against philosophy, but just showing that you can make anything stupid by putting "meta" in front of it. (Well, except meta-humans. Those are awesome)

 

[I Am The Scum]

Today, some thinkers seek to ground science in axiomatic assumptions such as the uniformity of nature. The majority of philosophers of science, however, take a coherentist approach to science in which a theory is validated if it makes sense of observations as part of a coherent whole. Still others, and Paul Feyerabend in particular, argue that there is no such thing as the "scientific method", so all approaches to science should be allowed, including explicitly supernatural ones. Another approach to thinking about science is to study how knowledge is created from a sociological perspective. Finally, there is a tradition in Continental philosophy which approaches science from the perspective of a rigorous analysis of human experience.


Any "philosophy of science" that allows the supernatural in the door isn't science.

While philosophers flail about trying to figure out what scientists do the scientists just go about doing it.

If there was a philosophy of railroading the philosophers would still be trying to figure out what powered a steam locomotive.

You're doing it.

The philosophy of science.

You're doing it right now.

Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions concern what counts as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the purpose of science

Feels good, doesn't it?

 

[Anerystos]

I used science to make a perfect Hollandaise sauce from scratch tonight.

The world is a better place.

QED

Please post your recipe. The last time I tried to make it I made some really good wallpaper paste – except that it attracted flies.

Ah, but tamarind and date chutney ...

 

[Anerystos]

I recognize all the words but when you put them together it gets a bit... odd.

Try randomising them. It doesn't make any more sense, but it's fun.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I got your attention, right?!!

Well, I leave science be for a moment and claim something else.

Me: Religion is bad!
Someone: How do you know that?
Me: Religion does more bad than good!
Someone: How do you know that?
Me: The world would be a better place if we replaced religion with science!
Someone: How do you know that? Who is that we? With what authority do you speak as a we and for all the world? How do you intend to replace religion? Can science do normative claims?

That is the short version and a practical example of what it means to be a skeptic. It is also why skeptics can be a pain in ***.
I as a human of course act and do stuff, but the moment someone goes we and the world, I go skeptic. That has nothing in particular to do with religion or politics, rather the moment someone in practice "plays" we and the world, I "bite" as a skeptic.
Someone: Why do you do that? Can't we agree that world would be a better place if we all became rational, logical, coherent and only used evidence and dropped beliefs?
Me: How do you know that this is possible?

Now I will answer, if you want to discuss how we might achieve a better world; i.e. I will try to be positive. But if you intent to go the route of in effect - "I only accept non-subjective evidence" I will "bite". That is philosophy, not science and it has been tried and it doesn't work.
So yes, I will try to be positive and not skeptical/negative about a better world, but I don't do - "I know with rationality, logical, objectivity, coherence and evidence and without subjective beliefs how we can achieve a better world".
It has been tried for over 2000 years now, both in philosophy and religion and it doesn't work!!!
So if you think you can do it using science, you are in all likelihood not doing science, but philosophy and/or religion. You just haven't realized it!

With regards

Basically, this is about why science is "better" than religion, right?

Well, religion strives to describe how you would like the world to be.
Science strives to describe how the world IS.

Is one better than the other? Well, quite personally, I feel that I can cope better with the world if I know how it is, rather than how I might like it to be. But, your mileage may vary.

Hans

 

[Anerystos]

If there was a philosophy of railroading the philosophers would still be trying to figure out what powered a steam locomotive.

... and the rest of us would be wondering why the sodding train was late again. And crowded.

Try Clapham Junction at 6pm on a Friday evening.

Philosophising on the nature of reality never stopped anyone from cursing that they had run out of milk for their breakfast tea (coffee), and the all-night shop was a round trip of half an hour, and had run out of milk anyway, but the early newsagent would be open soon, but today was the day that the delivery was late ...

 

[Hokulele]

Please post your recipe. The last time I tried to make it I made some really good wallpaper paste – except that it attracted flies.

Ah, but tamarind and date chutney ...

I use the recipe from an older version of the Joy of Cooking.

 

[tsig]

You're doing it.

The philosophy of science.

You're doing it right now.


Feels good, doesn't it?

I see, even to speak of philosophy is philosophy so one cannot criticize philosophy without doing philosophy.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I see, even to speak of philosophy is philosophy so one cannot criticize philosophy without doing philosophy.

I don't see why this is such a big problem.

Let me ask you this: What do you think the alternative is? The way I see it, if we are going to employ science and treat its findings as accurate, then there are two options.

A: Critically analyze the methods of science (the philosophy of science).
B: Just go along with the methods blindly (faith).
If you have a third option, let me know.

I think A is the best option. Do you disagree?