• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

Science with a capital "S"

QuickTwist

Spiritual "Woo"
Local time
Today 4:43 AM
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
7,182
---
Location
...
This is all just a semantic bullshit.

We can argue all damn day what the definition of science is but we both know very well that’s not the issue here, I don’t care if knowledge comes from experimentation in a laboratory or smacking rocks together in a forest. What’s important is that knowledge is gained and that knowledge is used to make an educated guess of what we should do, what we should think, what we should believe, what moral standards we should uphold and what crimes we should punish. Which brings us back to the OP question of whether or not science can determine what should be and for reasons I’ve already explained I think it can. Indeed I think we should use the scientific method to determine all our “should” or “should not” questions because science is the best method we have for obtaining knowledge and to make the best possible decisions we need all the knowledge we can get.

To me that seems like too much of an arduous task. Every thing would have to be a procedure which would severely limit inspiration an spontaneity. Basically, if we do things the way you suggest, you can say goodbye to art.
 

Cognisant

cackling in the trenches
Local time
Yesterday 11:43 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
11,155
---
Can anyone find me a picture of a strawman wearing a lampshade?
 

QuickTwist

Spiritual "Woo"
Local time
Today 4:43 AM
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
7,182
---
Location
...
Can anyone find me a picture of a strawman wearing a lampshade?

How? you suggest everything we do should be based on science. My claim is that if we do that then spontivity gets thrown out the window.
 

Cognisant

cackling in the trenches
Local time
Yesterday 11:43 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
11,155
---
You and I both know I don’t mean literally absolutely everything should be based on science because that's absurd and I'm not going to play that semantic game with you.

Just stop it.
 

QuickTwist

Spiritual "Woo"
Local time
Today 4:43 AM
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
7,182
---
Location
...
You and I both know I don’t mean literally absolutely everything should be based on science because that's absurd and I'm not going to play that semantic game with you.

Just stop it.

I mistook you saying "all our 'should' 'should not' decisions" to mean everything. You clearly didn't mean this, sorry.
 

Cognisant

cackling in the trenches
Local time
Yesterday 11:43 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
11,155
---
No worries :)

I don't know of any convention for defining scope when it comes to the application of intellectual methods to everyday life. But you can tell I'm talking about the more profound end of the scale by the other examples I gave.
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Today 9:43 PM
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,253
---
Location
69S 69E
Nah QuickTwist is right we should scientifically verify the best way to open the refrigerator. Otherwise how can we KNOW we're opening it the optimal way?!?!?!!?
 

onesteptwostep

Junior Hegelian
Local time
Today 7:43 PM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
4,253
---
I haven't read the entire thread in detail but my two cents are: science can be a supplementary source of what and where we should go, but it never itself the direct source of our choices. It presents choices, but the choice itself is of our own doing.

Where we ought to go and ought to be is more in the realm of morality and philosophy, and law and religion. How we ought to love, how we ought to serve, how we ought to treat our neighbors, none of this can be definitively explained by science.
 

QuickTwist

Spiritual "Woo"
Local time
Today 4:43 AM
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
7,182
---
Location
...
Nah QuickTwist is right we should scientifically verify the best way to open the refrigerator. Otherwise how can we KNOW we're opening it the optimal way?!?!?!!?

OMG, LMAO. Fucking ridiculous.
 

Cognisant

cackling in the trenches
Local time
Yesterday 11:43 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
11,155
---
I haven't read the entire thread in detail but my two cents are: science can be a supplementary source of what and where we should go, but it never itself the direct source of our choices. It presents choices, but the choice itself is of our own doing.

Where we ought to go and ought to be is more in the realm of morality and philosophy, and law and religion. How we ought to love, how we ought to serve, how we ought to treat our neighbors, none of this can be definitively explained by science.
What worthwhile alternative is there?

I dare you to say religion :twisteddevil:
 

onesteptwostep

Junior Hegelian
Local time
Today 7:43 PM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
4,253
---

Grayman

Soul Shade
Local time
Today 2:43 AM
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
4,418
---
Location
You basement

Cognisant

cackling in the trenches
Local time
Yesterday 11:43 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
11,155
---
Your definition of optimal lacks constraints and an undefined definition is no definition at all.
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Today 8:13 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
7,065
---
I haven't read the entire thread in detail but my two cents are: science can be a supplementary source of what and where we should go, but it never itself the direct source of our choices. It presents choices, but the choice itself is of our own doing.

Where we ought to go and ought to be is more in the realm of morality and philosophy, and law and religion. How we ought to love, how we ought to serve, how we ought to treat our neighbors, none of this can be definitively explained by science.

Science is the options and not the choice, but law, religion, philosophy, and morality are the choice and not the options? Or am I over-generalising from your stated position?

If these things are the choice makers, then from where comes your agency?

What's more, how is science not a good place to start for these kinds of questions? Why is it okay to consult a philosophy or moral position on how to treat your neighbors, but not okay to do exactly the same thing in addition to collecting and referring to evidence? Is science not a position in relation to the fundamental nature of knowledge, and therefore a philosophy?

What if we surveyed a sample comprised only of Abrahamic prophets? Disqualified because science? What if we did a case study on God?

I guess I just don't understand why religion, law, philosophy, or morality can tell people what to do, but science can't. From my perspective it's always a person making a choice, informed by any number of these things - there is no distinction between informers and choice makers, they're all informers. And what advantage do any of these other disciplines have over science as informers? Bentham and Mill might say that we need to maximise happiness, but if people are happier when we don't try to maximise happiness then they need to stfu (hypothetically). Religion may say we need to pray for the sickly, but if praying caused them to get worse we need to stop (again hypothetically).
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Today 9:43 PM
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,253
---
Location
69S 69E
Okay guys so I did an experiment before because I was really struggling to understand the optimal angle for pouring milk into my cereal bowl, dependent on the size and shape of the bowl and milk carton, as well as the type of cereal being eaten.

I've tested this with Corn Flakes, where I selected a pool of 37 people from the population at random with no preference for gender or physical characteristics. A variety of bowls were tested with the Corn Flakes and the 37 participants poured milk from standard 1 Litre cartons, 2 Litre plastic bottles as well as 1 Litre TetraPak cartons (frequently used to store longlife UHT or Soy varieties of milk).

From this experiment I have deduced that Corn Flakes are best eaten from a wide, shallow bowl and benefit from what I will term the, 'close pour' and 'bowl fill' procedures. For this procedure, you want to actually rest the spout of the milk carton/bottle and pour the milk directly onto the bowl and actually avoid pouring the milk over the cereal.

This is because the flakes are often positioned in a manner that is convex relative to the direction of milk pouring. Due to this, the milk can have a tendency to quickly pool in a particular Corn Flake and then shoot back out, creating a literal geyser of cold, delicious milk that will cover anything in a 20cm radius in milk. Obviously, this is not the optimal way to pour milk into your Corn Flakes.

However by using the 'close pour' and 'bowl fill' procedures of milk pouring, we pour the milk into the bowl and from a low position - the milk therefore gains less momentum while pouring while also being directed to an area where the chances of a convex flake creating a milk geyser are minimized. By using a shallow and wide bowl, if a geyser is inadvertently created during the pour, the mess created is minimized as the wider surface area of the bowl will contain most of the spillage.

Also as a purely subjective benefit, I think Corn Flakes possess optimal taste when slightly crunchy and not 'covered' by the milk. The close-pour-bowl-fill position is therefore optimal in this way as well.

I will be updating this thread regularly with more details of the experiments I conduct throughout my daily life, wherein I ascertain the most optimal way to do the most trivial of things. But for now, at least I've taught you guys the most empirically correct way to pour milk into a bowl of Corn Flakes, so you can avoid that awful problem of Convex Corn Flake Milk Geysers.

Science: solving the problems no other methodology can solve.
 

QuickTwist

Spiritual "Woo"
Local time
Today 4:43 AM
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
7,182
---
Location
...
OMG RB, I am in tears!!!
 

Cognisant

cackling in the trenches
Local time
Yesterday 11:43 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
11,155
---
Bravo RB you're advancing mankind :D
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Today 9:43 PM
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,253
---
Location
69S 69E
Thanks guys really means a lot to me, I know I can prove that science is the best if I keep doing important experiments like this one!!!
 

QuickTwist

Spiritual "Woo"
Local time
Today 4:43 AM
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
7,182
---
Location
...
Thanks guys really means a lot to me, I know I can prove that science is the best if I keep doing important experiments like this one!!!

You should do one for mini wheats. Also one for buttering bread.

Its amazing what you can learn through science when there is absolutely no danger involved whatsoever!
 

onesteptwostep

Junior Hegelian
Local time
Today 7:43 PM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
4,253
---
Science is the options and not the choice, but law, religion, philosophy, and morality are the choice and not the options? Or am I over-generalising from your stated position?

Somewhat. They are the rationale for the choices, or systems of argument, not the choices themselves. Science presents itself options through empirical measurement, but measurements in it of themselves are not the rationale for the choices that we take.

I guess I just don't understand why religion, law, philosophy, or morality can tell people what to do, but science can't. From my perspective it's always a person making a choice, informed by any number of these things - there is no distinction between informers and choice makers, they're all informers.

Yes, but when faced with choices that affect society, or the future of society, science cannot be the final arbiter of what is right or wrong. Take slavery for example, or vegetarianism. Or take systems of government, like democracy or communism, or systems of economy. The courts are another good example.

What ought to be or what should be is formulated through reasoning, then supplemented with science, not the other way around. An example of this would be outlining the universal rights for a human being, then using science to outline the cruelty in not enforcing it.

Note- these are not the choice makers themselves, we are the choice makers. But do we make the right choices? Well that depends.. and so we argue. And what are these systems of argumentation called? In short, they're philosophy, morality, law, and to a certain extent religion.
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Today 9:43 PM
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,253
---
Location
69S 69E
Imagine if you could use science to justify reasoning. Really amazing and unconventional I know but bear with me for a second I have this insane idea:

Imagine if there wasn't actually any real reason for philosophical, moral, legal or religious reason to supplant scientific reason in defining what 'should' be.
 

Tannhauser

angry insecure male
Local time
Today 11:43 AM
Joined
Jul 18, 2015
Messages
1,462
---
There are many fields of science where nobody’s trying to disprove anything, scientists working on developing new types of batteries are far more interested in discovering what does work rather than what doesn’t. It only appears to you that falsificationism is the dominant purview of science because you’re an idiot with idiotic beliefs that are constantly being falsified because they are false.

Now you appear both ignorant and butthurt.

Go back to watching Neil Degrasse Tyson youtube videos.
 

onesteptwostep

Junior Hegelian
Local time
Today 7:43 PM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
4,253
---
Imagine if there wasn't actually any real reason for philosophical, moral, legal or religious reason to supplant scientific reason in defining what 'should' be.

Well, we probably wouldn't be here, for one.

But if you're talking about the present, i.e. from this point onwards, and try to abolish all philosophical, moral, or legal or religious reasoning, that would mean no communication whatsoever; and in turn that would mean the abolishment of scientific reason itself as well.
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Today 9:43 PM
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,253
---
Location
69S 69E
Holy shit this thread.

Someone suggests that we could and should use science more often for the purpose of more complete and effective decisions based on knowledge and it's like, "Omg buT thAT woUlD make iT so ARduOUS to Even LIVE, RIP art as we knOw it!!!"

The posts I made about optimal door-opening and milk-pouring were intended to highlight the absurdity of interpreting the suggestion of "science is the most robust system of knowledge we have, we should use it" to be the same as suggesting we spend literally our entire lives in a state of constant experimentation paralysis, as if all creativity would somehow die because science existed.

...

And then I mention that there's no actual argument for supplanting scientific reasoning with any other mode of reasoning - and it gets interpreted as, "abolish all other forms of reasoning". Yeah, that's totally what I was suggesting...

It's like there's some unspoken competition to see who can be the most out of touch with reality on the forum.

Sometimes I think that only 1/10 people in the world are human and the rest are just NPC's put here as side quests to see how the humans respond to your bullshit.
 

Ex-User (9086)

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 10:43 AM
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
4,758
---
Anyway deleting my previous post because Blarraun, I don't really know how after all this time you can still think that the things which motivate me to post is stuff like 'dismissing people' but I think I've realised that somehow you've developed a really weird view of the type of person I am. Moving on...
It was ad hominem based on what you represented with your actions in this thread with the expectations that you desist and deny or insist and confirm it. I find your behaviour quite annoying and dismissive as usual, I'm not trying to guess what you think about your own behaviour.

I agree with the remainder of your post, though I wouldn't say pop scientists advance scientific literacy beyond a superficial degree, it's pure entertainment with some big news scattered across, it doesn't advance the listener's understanding of higher concepts because it's always abstracted into the same level of simplicity.
It's not like Tyson and co. started to make their speeches more advanced as time went on, they keep the same routine for pretty much the same crowds of people who visit their shows for some fun and "awe" moments.

As a result the average Joe knows more about the black holes than he knows about sustainable agricultural production or energy saving or other far more relevant concepts that could inform his decision making on this planet favourably for us all.
 
Top Bottom