How do you deal with the 'science is a religion' crap?

[technoextreme]

How's that? If there are temperatures which we will never be able to reach at which a metal could potentially (or not) melt, how would it be falsified?

Athon

Actually, there is an even bigger gapping hole in your argument. Being metallic is a property of a material.

 

[PingOfPong]

The materialistic point of view is widely accepted by scientists from all realms of science. But can it be proven? No! Scientists simply believe in it. Troubling a bit – don't you think?

I'm not trying to answer for Avalon but, for a science enthusiast like me, materialism isn't a problem at all. In the end it's a humble and practical conclusion which is mildly inferred from our senses. It's more mild than, just for example, "the invisible hand of my one true God is responsible for everything that happens". I'm not particularly attached to materialism but I do find it annoying when someone demands fair treatment for their arcane and transparently self-promoting ramblings. Christians and their Intelligent Design agenda are the perfect example.

 

[Xulld]

I have often heard this "argument" that science is something that we just chose to believe; and it's just as much of a faith as religion. I'm sure you've heard it too. How do you deal with it? I get so annoyed at that "argument" that I usually get rude and sarcastic. But I wanted to know how I can counter that without being sarcastic. How can I construct a reasoned argument against that? Should I start from how axioms in maths and science are self-evident truths and belief in them is not even remotely close to belief in a religion.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

In the same way that belief that my chair will support my weight is a religion.

 

[athon]

Actually, there is an even bigger gapping hole in your argument. Being metallic is a property of a material.

Actually, being metallic is a term we use to describe materials of a range of properties - it is not a property in its own right, but rather a shorthand to state a material can do certain things. So, if you want to be precise, it would be an unfalsifiable hypothesis to state 'all materials that exhibit demonstrable properties A, B and C would also exhibit property D (where property D occurs on a spectrum that is impossible to cover in its entirety).'

We can induce this (every material that has properties A, B and C is heated until it melts, and if it doesn't, assume its melting point is greater than the highest figure), but it can't be falsified.

Athon

 

[not daSkeptic]

I'd really need to see some evidence of this view.

I'll see if I can locate something about Popper's views on this. Even if he himself did not say it, it's still a sound logical concept in my opinion. If thing A may one day lead to a certain outcome but thing B never will, then one who is pursuing said outcome is better off going with A over B. There is no guarantee that A will lead to the outcome, but there is a guarantee that B will not.

I still don't see how this difference is practically useful. Even if it is potentially useful one day in the future, that just means it's an idea that is left to one side for now.

The presumption is that some ideas should be left aside forever. The usefulness is being able to identify these and avoid them.

The sticking point for me has been that there is a difference between how people feel science should work, and how it actually does.

Agreed, but that does not necessarily mean the status quo is the right way. Such a view suffers from the very same problem of induction that Popper was trying to resolve. I don't mean to suggest you hold this view, I'm just pointing it out.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yes I agree with you Avalon, and I want to give another example in which science might disturbingly look like religion. The materialistic point of view is widely accepted by scientists from all realms of science. But can it be proven? No! Scientists simply believe in it. Troubling a bit – don't you think?

You're using a computer. You live in an upholstered cave. You transit by motorized vehicle or a human powered vehicle built by the principles of science. You watch TV. Your life is saved by science on occasion.

And, despite the above, you think science is "no better than" religion. That always just floors me.

(Apologies if you actually live in an unimproved cave, wear animal skins and are posting via telepathy.)

 

[Beth]

Yes I agree with you Avalon, and I want to give another example in which science might disturbingly look like religion. The materialistic point of view is widely accepted by scientists from all realms of science. But can it be proven? No! Scientists simply believe in it. Troubling a bit – don't you think?

Science is predicated on certain assumptions. Not many, but a few. One of them is that our observations of everything we experience physically can be explained via the interactions of material objects. Another is that non-living material objects behave in consistent and predictable ways.

We experience the validity of these assumptions on a daily basis. I realize that, for many people, they feel they constantly experience the validity of their religious assumptions as well, but it cannot be denied that the universality of that experience is not the same for all people whereas there is great agreement on our experiences with material objects.

You're using a computer. You live in an upholstered cave. You transit by motorized vehicle or a human powered vehicle built by the principles of science. You watch TV. Your life is saved by science on occasion.

And, despite the above, you think science is "no better than" religion. That always just floors me.

(Apologies if you actually live in an unimproved cave, wear animal skins and are posting via telepathy.)

I can understand your way of looking at it, but I don't feel it is reasonable to expect other people to either share that opinion or give up living in a modern society. Remember, as I said above, many people feel they experience the validity of their religious assumptions as constantly and consistently as they do the assumptions that underlie science.

 

[athon]

I'll see if I can locate something about Popper's views on this.

Thanks. I'd honestly love to read it.

Even if he himself did not say it, it's still a sound logical concept in my opinion. If thing A may one day lead to a certain outcome but thing B never will, then one who is pursuing said outcome is better off going with A over B. There is no guarantee that A will lead to the outcome, but there is a guarantee that B will not.

I disagree. There is never certainty (which is how I interpret what you mean by a 'guarantee'). There is always that addendum that says 'unless an observation occurs that prompts us to view this idea again in a new light'.

Look at string theory. Totally non-falsifiable. I know a lot of people would even say it isn't science. Yet enough people are working on it in the hope new observations or conclusions might provide a breakthrough that allows it to be useful. Nobody would dare say that it should be thrown away and never revisited simply because it currently cannot be falsified.

The presumption is that some ideas should be left aside forever. The usefulness is being able to identify these and avoid them.

Again, science cannot make such decisions. It can only cause us to put aside ideas until new observations cause us to reconsider them. Of course, there are good chances that this will never happen for many ideas. I honestly don't think anybody will ever return to the hypothesis that heat is a physical material. Yet it's illogical to state it will never happen. The best we can do is have that proviso.

Agreed, but that does not necessarily mean the status quo is the right way.

Of course. People were immensely supportive of vitalism at the turn of the 20th century because the observations supported it over iatrochemical theories. That was pretty much the status quo, and we now know it was wrong.

However, what changed minds was new observations (Schrodinger's essays made a big difference, but the kicker was the discovery of DNA that fitted his proposed theory) that could better support the mechanistic theory and made vitalism unnecessary.

Such a view suffers from the very same problem of induction that Popper was trying to resolve. I don't mean to suggest you hold this view, I'm just pointing it out.

No, I agree totally. That was why a lot of people opposed Kuhn's theories on how science worked. It feels like a clumsy way of doing science. But, as many philosophers keep coming back to, it does work in spite of being unappealing to purists like Popper.

Athon

 

[athon]

The materialistic point of view is widely accepted by scientists from all realms of science.

Materialism in a scientific sense is simply a description of those laws that seem to govern the universe. That's all.

But can it be proven?

First of all, science doesn't deal in proofs. That's a mathematical term. It deals in weight of evidence. In other words, it's about confidence in an idea, not absolute conviction.

If somebody describes that confidence with the word 'absolutely convinced', then that's a personal view you'd have to take up with them.

Scientists simply believe in it. Troubling a bit – don't you think?

What's troubling about it? It works.

Athon

 

[not daSkeptic]

I disagree. There is never certainty (which is how I interpret what you mean by a 'guarantee'). There is always that addendum that says 'unless an observation occurs that prompts us to view this idea again in a new light'.

Regardless of how many times I've said it or ways I've tried to explain it, for whatever reason you seem to be refusing to recognize that I am discussing philosophy and logic, not the practical application thereof.

I'm done.

 

[athon]

Regardless of how many times I've said it or ways I've tried to explain it, for whatever reason you seem to be refusing to recognize that I am discussing philosophy and logic, not the practical application thereof.

Fine, I understand that. However what you don't seem to get is that science is a pragmatic philosophy. The whole history of natural philosophy - from Aristotle to Sokal - has been concerned with how you produce practical, useful answers from tentative ideas.

Teasing apart the pure philosophy from the practicalities of science is counter to the entire reason as to why science developed. The Vienna Circle's manifesto was a response to metaphysics, which they saw as purely philosophical yet practically useless. From that we get logical positivism, and in turn falsification. The irony of you then trying to use falsification in a purely philosophical light is overwhelming.

I'm done.

Yes, I would be too if I was trying to argue that.

Athon

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I can understand your way of looking at it, but I don't feel it is reasonable to expect other people to either share that opinion or give up living in a modern society. Remember, as I said above, many people feel they experience the validity of their religious assumptions as constantly and consistently as they do the assumptions that underlie science.

Religion is mysticism, its sole source is internal. It's not falsifiable, and the existence of a god cannot be proven. When you think about it, it's almost as if science had been developed to correct the mistakes of religion.

 

[Cimerian]

Let there be light! Sorry, couldn't resist.

hehe... God created only the visible range of the spectrum

 

[skeptsci]

I'm not trying to answer for Avalon but, for a science enthusiast like me, materialism isn't a problem at all. In the end it's a humble and practical conclusion which is mildly inferred from our senses. It's more mild than, just for example, "the invisible hand of my one true God is responsible for everything that happens". I'm not particularly attached to materialism but I do find it annoying when someone demands fair treatment for their arcane and transparently self-promoting ramblings. Christians and their Intelligent Design agenda are the perfect example.

I agree mainly on the ID issue. Also I can sympathize with what you wrote on the mildness of as I, as a scientist, tend to fill the same. However, the philosopher in me would not let me such an easy way out. These are your senses you were talking about but a religious person would tell you that according to their senses God concept is the most plausible conclusion while materialism is weird (given the mind-body problem, qualia etc.). It does appear to me (and not only to me) that even as scientists, we do have our unproven and unprovable beliefs

 

[skeptsci]

You're using a computer. You live in an upholstered cave. You transit by motorized vehicle or a human powered vehicle built by the principles of science. You watch TV. Your life is saved by science on occasion.

And, despite the above, you think science is "no better than" religion. That always just floors me.

(Apologies if you actually live in an unimproved cave, wear animal skins and are posting via telepathy.)

LOL - I do. I wish this dame cave was upholstered...
Can you show me where did I write the quoted (by you) sentence ""no better than"". Quoting untruthfully, now that's unscientific!!!
Anyway, I'm immersed in scientific practice and thought so don't get floored to fast. All the examples you gave are not to the point. I hope you do know what materialism means don't you? How do computers prove that our mind (say consciousness) fully works on materialistic principles? I, as most other biologists today, think and believe it does, but we all do it without any evidence and with only moderate hope (no proof) that we'll ever have one (I mean evidence - not mind... ).

 

[PingOfPong]

These are your senses you were talking about but a religious person would tell you that according to their senses God concept is the most plausible conclusion while materialism is weird

Yes, but I contend that sensing "God" and sensing the world are not equally worthy bases for truth no matter how much a believer wants to equivocate. It should be obvious to anyone that it's very possible to feel the existence something that's not real. Just look at homeopathy. Think back to your childhood when you were certain that a monster was in the closet or under your bed.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

LOL - I do. I wish this dame cave was upholstered...
Can you show me where did I write the quoted (by you) sentence ""no better than"". Quoting untruthfully, now that's unscientific!!!
Anyway, I'm immersed in scientific practice and thought so don't get floored to fast. All the examples you gave are not to the point. I hope you do know what materialism means don't you? How do computers prove that our mind (say consciousness) fully works on materialistic principles? I, as most other biologists today, think and believe it does, but we all do it without any evidence and with only moderate hope (no proof) that we'll ever have one (I mean evidence - not mind... ).

That was directed to the general poster.

 

[aggle-rithm]

It does appear to me (and not only to me) that even as scientists, we do have our unproven and unprovable beliefs

I, as most other biologists today, think and believe it does, but we all do it without any evidence and with only moderate hope (no proof) that we'll ever have one (I mean evidence - not mind... ).

You should re-read Athon's post:

First of all, science doesn't deal in proofs. That's a mathematical term. It deals in weight of evidence. In other words, it's about confidence in an idea, not absolute conviction.

 

[Perpetual Student]

There have been a lot of interesting and provocative ideas expressed here.
Nevertheless, it seems to me that if someone genuinely believes that "science is religion," no single idea or discussion will change that belief. Someone who actually sees science as just another religion is demonstrating such a profound ignorance of science and how science is done, that it would take years of education to change that opinion -- if it could be modified at all. After a brief discussion with such people, it has been my experience that simply walking away from further discussion is the best course.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There have been a lot of interesting and provocative ideas expressed here.
Nevertheless, it seems to me that if someone genuinely believes that "science is religion," no single idea or discussion will change that belief. Someone who actually sees science as just another religion is demonstrating such a profound ignorance of science and how science is done, that it would take years of education to change that opinion -- if it could be modified at all. After a brief discussion with such people, it has been my experience that simply walking away from further discussion is the best course.

The problem with discussing this with them is best illustrated by one of Kirk Cameron's lines:

"You have to get around their intellect, get them to stop thinking."

With their leadership urging them to turn off their brains there's little we can do to get an opposing viewpoint across.