I'm all for scientific exploration and discovery, but to use Science (capital S) as a source of determining what should be I think is somewhat misguided.
I suppose it depends upon how much is known or rather how well we understand. I think ultimately the best we can do is act upon the knowledge we've got, to do otherwise is fraught with peril. Even if that knowledge is insufficient to come to a decisive conclusion then an educated guess is still better than an uneducated one.
The problems happen when people read say, the abstract and form conclusions based on that. Or extrapolate things from a study that go beyond the scope of that study to predict. General truths are worthless without context, and the apparent shortcomings of science are just the result of people misapplying it.
People have somehow acquired the impression that Science has a goal of monopolizing all statements about the world. I think that is a consequence of both pseudoscientists pretending to do science (and thus extending the field to places where it doesnt belong) and naive pseudointellectuals like Neil Degrasse Tyson trying to sell Science to people as some sort of magical solution to everything.
Meanwhile, Science is just a specific tradition in inquiry, dealing with falsifiable theories and phenomena which lend themselves to formal empirical research. Many true scientists understand that by its very definition, science cannot be the answer to everything.
Science can uncover the truth, but the truth is insufficient motivation. People need more. When we talk about normative statements, I think it is just a form of motivational communication that is an expression of a deeper, if elegant, animal nature.
The problems happen when people read say, the abstract and form conclusions based on that. Or extrapolate things from a study that go beyond the scope of that study to predict. General truths are worthless without context, and the apparent shortcomings of science are just the result of people misapplying it.
Science requires that we prove that scientifically, before making the claim.
To make the claim scientifically, we have to first investigate every possible method of finding answers, from every avenue, however ridiculous it seems, and then conduct repeated experiments for each one, until we can be reasonably sure of their general reliability.
We then have to do the same for science.
Then we can list just how many better choices there are.
Until then, science requires that we say that we don't know if there's many better choices.
Science can uncover the truth, but the truth is insufficient motivation. People need more. When we talk about normative statements, I think it is just a form of motivational communication that is an expression of a deeper, if elegant, animal nature.
Science is data. Data is not direction. Science does little to tell us how to conduct our lives.
It would be one thing if cultural science was at the forefront of things, but its not. What we get is little pieces of some of different things that apply to things in a scattered way rather than a holistic sense in a way to guide our individuality. This is why I think philosophy is a better tool to tell how to conduct one's life than science.
Science is a tool for answering questions and providing solutions. The questions and needs that arise from natural desires of men.
It doesn't override our desires, morality or preferences, rather it enhances them and allows us to make informed choices about which principles or ethics are feasible or achievable and which ones should be discarded as faulty or deluded.
What lies at the core of science are the principles of rationality and realism, any moral or social tenets that violate those two elements are fundamentally incompatible and shouldn't be considered as viable building blocks for interpersonal regulations or state functions. On the individual level, however, there isn't much incentive to limit one's philosophy or perception solely to scientific perspectives as it will never be a superior position or one true faith and shouldn't be regarded as one.
People have somehow acquired the impression that Science has a goal of monopolizing all statements about the world. I think that is a consequence of both pseudoscientists pretending to do science (and thus extending the field to places where it doesnt belong) and naive pseudointellectuals like Neil Degrasse Tyson trying to sell Science to people as some sort of magical solution to everything.
Meanwhile, Science is just a specific tradition in inquiry, dealing with falsifiable theories and phenomena which lend themselves to formal empirical research. Many true scientists understand that by its very definition, science cannot be the answer to everything.
What other forms of acquiring knowledge are there?
It may not have the goal of monopolising all statements, but I'm unaware of anything that really compares. It seems like a monopoly by default.
Also how is Neil Degrasse Tyson a pseudointellectual? He may not be the most accomplished scientist, and you may not like him too much, but he's a great teacher, and in my opinion has done more for science than the vast majority of active scientists simply by stimulating interest in fertile minds. Sure he's a poster boy, but he's not stupid and he holds a genuine interest. I don't see how his presentation is in anyway fraudulent.
This is kind of what I was trying to say when I wrote the post Cog quoted for the OP, but I was drunk when I wrote it (I'm drunk now, too) so it may not have come across completely (or maybe it did, who knows I'm drunk). I wasn't even necessarily saying that it's the worst thing ever. As far as religions goes, Science may even be a better choice than any of the "real" religions, but it just kind of struck (strikes?) a chord in me when people misuse things we as a people have learned scientifically to try and insinuate that there's a "right" way to live life and whatnot.
Someone mentioned Neil DeGrasse Tyson and while I'm not his biggest fan (Bill Nye will forever be one of my childhood heroes) I don't think he's a bad person at all and I do appreciate that he at least emphasizes the good that scientific literacy can do. That said, he is definitely one of the "prophets" of the religion that is Science (Bill Nye, too. Although I personally love getting nostalgic over old Bill Nye the Science Guy reruns).
Depends on what you mean by 'knowledge'. For example, do you think that most of the knowledge you use in your personal life is scientific (i.e. derived from falsifiable theories)? I would bet that at least 99% of all knowledge we use in our lives belongs to either: inductive statements, heuristics, statistical statements or mere stories we invent for ourselves. That is the default mode of human 'knowledge', and I think that is the way it should be.
Also how is Neil Degrasse Tyson a pseudointellectual? He may not be the most accomplished scientist, and you may not like him too much, but he's a great teacher, and in my opinion has done more for science than the vast majority of active scientists simply by stimulating interest in fertile minds. Sure he's a poster boy, but he's not stupid and he holds a genuine interest. I don't see how his presentation is in anyway fraudulent.
I am sure he has expertise in physics, which is the field in which he was educated, but all of his attempts I have seen which diverted outside that field have all been pure gibberish – including the attempts at defining what science is.
That 99% of human knowledge doesn't get us much further than survival in immediate surroundings. If that's all you care about then great otherwise you can stop trying to be edgy and unique.
That 99% of human knowledge doesn't get us much further than survival in immediate surroundings. If that's all you care about then great otherwise you can stop trying to be edgy and unique.
World without science and relying on the '99%' you're talking about leads us to absentee omnipotent father figures, witch hunts and Sharia law. This argument that scientific knowledge 'shouldn't' be part of life is nonsense.
It's just another way of knowing and understanding things and one that happens to be more effective for particular things. If you want to make an argument for how life would be better for not having science, feel free.
World without science and relying on the '99%' you're talking about leads us to absentee omnipotent father figures, witch hunts and Sharia law. This argument that scientific knowledge 'shouldn't' be part of life is nonsense.
It's just another way of knowing and understanding things and one that happens to be more effective for particular things. If you want to make an argument for how life would be better for not having science, feel free.
Look, we probably agree a lot more than you think, but perhaps the fact that you think I'm trying to be edgy by criticizing Neil Degrasse Tyson just shows how much damage these people have done.
People like him and in some cases Dawkins and Harris seem to hold the notion that 'scientific' means 'that which has data', that which "has evidence to support it", that which is "verified" by experiment and similar notions. That is basically verificationism, which, since the 1950's, has been shown, most notably by Karl Popper, to be a logical fallacy. It would exclude a-priori-theories like General Relativity and include things like Astrology.
Obviously there are things that science, by the definition of being falsifiable, simply cannot give the answer to, e.g. whether there exists a god or not. Hence it seems very foolish to make science out to be the answer to everything by defining it as "stuff which is empirically verified". I think they (Degrasse Tyson etc) would be much more effective at eradicating dogma and religious thinking by actually knowing what science is – and separating certain philosophical questions from scientific questions.
TLDR; I like science, I am an atheist, but I think Neil Degrasse Tyson is wrong.
That is basically verificationism, which, since the 1950's, has been shown, most notably by Karl Popper, to be a logical fallacy. It would exclude a-priori-theories like General Relativity and include things like Astrology.
I somehow doubt Dawkins/Tyson support astrology and shun GR. If you can give examples of them doing something like this, that'd be good.
Obviously there are things that science, by the definition of being falsifiable, simply cannot give the answer to, e.g. whether there exists a god or not. Hence it seems very foolish to make science out to be the answer to everything by defining it as "stuff which is empirically verified". I think they (Degrasse Tyson etc) would be much more effective at eradicating dogma and religious thinking by actually knowing what science is – and separating certain philosophical questions from scientific questions.
I think if your interpretation of their intended message is that science can answer everything then you've misunderstood entirely.
We live in a world with a lot of scientific knowledge, and that knowledge is routinely ignored and overlooked in favour of the '99%' which almost invariably leads to inefficiency and wastefulness. Science is just information, and happens to be more right, more often, about more things.
Saying it shouldn't be part of the knowledge we use in our lives is pointless. How is inventing a thundergod to explain lightning superior to learning about weather systems?
Not only that it doesn't really follow from your point. You don't like Degrasse Tyson so therefore we should stop using science...that's absurd.
You said outright that we shouldn't use science but instead rely on what you consider 'default' modes of knowledge. If you want to backtrack on that it's okay but I guess you've realised how dumb that is.
You said outright that we shouldn't use science but instead rely on what you consider 'default' modes of knowledge. If you want to backtrack on that it's okay but I guess you've realised how dumb that is.
He never said that. He said that you shouldn't use only science and that most of our natural learning processes do not include scientific processes but other processes.
People like him and in some cases Dawkins and Harris seem to hold the notion that 'scientific' means 'that which has data', that which "has evidence to support it", that which is "verified" by experiment and similar notions.
The scientific method is to verify theories by experimentation, I don't know what you think science is but if not that then you're wrong.
That is basically verificationism, which, since the 1950's, has been shown, most notably by Karl Popper, to be a logical fallacy. It would exclude a-priori-theories like General Relativity and include things like Astrology.
Empiricism is not a fallacy, a priori knowledge is a fallacy, the theory of general relativity has be meticulously tested (the GPS network wouldn't work without it) and astrology has been conclusively proven to be utter nonsense.
I don't know what you're smoking but I'll take two
Obviously there are things that science, by the definition of being falsifiable, simply cannot give the answer to, e.g. whether there exists a god or not.
Bob the unicorn from the magical land up my ass disagrees, Bob says god is a delusion perpetuated by religious parents brainwashing their impressionable children and if Bob says it then it must be true because as we all know unicorns are incapable of lying.
Hence it seems very foolish to make science out to be the answer to everything by defining it as "stuff which is empirically verified". I think they (Degrasse Tyson etc) would be much more effective at eradicating dogma and religious thinking by actually knowing what science is – and separating certain philosophical questions from scientific questions.
He never said that. He said that you shouldn't use only science and that most of our natural learning processes do not include scientific processes but other processes.
It's not possible to "use only science", I might learn something by observing someone without formulating a theory about what they're doing prior to seeing the result.
But is that have any bearing on this discussion?
I learned many things in school and many things since by reading, now that's not science, but I gained knowledge and much of that knowledge came from the science done by people in the past.
...am I misunderstanding something?
Science is a METHOD for obtaining knowledge so in retrospect the OP question was wrong, there's no kind of knowledge that's specific to science, it's not a doctrine though it is a discipline. So fundamentally the question being asked in this thread is whether or not KNOWLEDGE should be the basis of determining what should be as opposed to simply determining what is.
The scientific method is to verify theories by experimentation, I don't know what you think science is but if not that then you're wrong.
Empiricism is not a fallacy, a priori knowledge is a fallacy, the theory of general relativity has be meticulously tested (the GPS network wouldn't work without it) and astrology has been conclusively proven to be utter nonsense.
I don't know what you're smoking but I'll take two
Bob the unicorn from the magical land up my ass disagrees, Bob says god is a delusion perpetuated by religious parents brainwashing their impressionable children and if Bob says it then it must be true because as we all know unicorns are incapable of lying.
Tannhauser wanted to say that GR was an a-priori thought experiment at its origin. It wasn't a theory available with the empirical evidence of the time period it was born it. Simply put, it was intuition, a mere guess backed by an understanding of previous theories and mathematically rigorous imagination.
It took years to find first evidence for the theory and we continue to confirm some of its wilder assumptions today, such as with the gravitational waves.
Are you intentionally playing daft? I think what Tannhauser meant to say is that following the trite methods of verificationism displayed by Dawkins or Tyson they would choose astrology over GR, if they were in a position to choose from among them. I don't necessarily agree with that.
That said Tyson and Dawkins are pop-scientists, they offer candy bed stories to uneducated crowds as a form of entertainment and I think it's perfectly fine, they aren't scientists on stage, they were scientists when they sat in the lab, now they're salesmen/storytellers/comedians.
Since I mentioned it, what's your take on mathematics then, hearing you say that science is the only thing we have?
It's not a scientific body of knowledge, it has much closer ties with philosophy than it has with empirical observations. Yet despite all that it's a dimension that consistently produces accurate approximations and descriptions for the empirical data.
Most mathematical applications can be empirically tested, some can't. Math puts out what you put in (obviously) so it's as good as the user.
Where did I say science is the only thing we have anyway? In my last post I just said you can't use only science, how can you possibly interpret that as, 'it's all we have'?
Also I really can't be bothered having this stupid debate again but I want to state I'm really fucking sick and tired of people who act like Einstein's ideas are, "dat intuition" and discussing them like they're some MaGiCaL shit when they're actually the product of dozens of years of hard work.
So where do Tyson and Dawkins commit this error of 'verificationism' anyway? How many people go around touting astrology is a legitimate thing based on the things Dawkins and Tyson say?
From what I can tell the two main messages are:
1. Religion sucks dick
2. Science is cool
3. Do science, it's cool. You can be cool like me
I'd much rather have these role models of thought than some televangelist. These kinds of role models are fucking ESSENTIAL in this modern world because science is STILL struggling to get real funding for important projects. The only place it "thrives" are in areas of corporate interest which is really unfortunate.
Of course the spokespeople aren't doing experimental science - because experiments take shitloads of time, that obviously they don't have. I don't always agree with their wording but their underpinning understanding of science is fine (yes I am the qualified arbiter of this, appointed by the ruler of the universe himself).
Guys holy shit what happened here why is everyone so angry?
You're going to break a rub beating your chest like that.
@Tannhauser
Past a certain threshold of importance there is no substitute for science. Sure, I don't rely on studies to inform the majority of my decisions, but that's because my best guess is sufficient and I'm willing to accept consequences if I'm wrong. You shouldn't make decisions for other people without science. Of course, there's also logic, maths, etc., and I'm a big fan, but that stuff only holds water so long as it works. And we know it works (or where it works) because it's constantly tested. When it doesn't work it's a big deal.
I think you're probably right in that we likely agree on more things that we disagree on in this domain.
It might help if we narrowed what specifically you think Tyson is wrong about? That science is the one and only? Because I'm not sure that's actually something he's claimed?
I think I've linked this somewhere before but it feels relevant and it's fun so oh well
It's not possible to "use only science", I might learn something by observing someone without formulating a theory about what they're doing prior to seeing the result.
But is that have any bearing on this discussion?
I learned many things in school and many things since by reading, now that's not science, but I gained knowledge and much of that knowledge came from the science done by people in the past.
...am I misunderstanding something?
Science is a METHOD for obtaining knowledge so in retrospect the OP question was wrong, there's no kind of knowledge that's specific to science, it's not a doctrine though it is a discipline. So fundamentally the question being asked in this thread is whether or not KNOWLEDGE should be the basis of determining what should be as opposed to simply determining what is.
I agree with most of this. Thing I disagree with (if this is what you are saying) is that there is no separation between science and knowledge. Science is a study, not a guess. As we all agree that we don't use solely to make decisions. So if science is something that is true and true and everything else is estimation, then we cannot logically be sure of every decision we make. Though again, true enough, is that the things we do without being 100% sure of are not completely uninformed decisions. There is always some info to work with. Given that we make some decisions with partial information and far fewer decisions with a certainty (science), it should be clear that NOT all knowledge is science.
Guys holy shit what happened here why is everyone so angry?
You're going to break a rub beating your chest like that.
@Tannhauser
Past a certain threshold of importance there is no substitute for science. Sure, I don't rely on studies to inform the majority of my decisions, but that's because my best guess is sufficient and I'm willing to accept consequences if I'm wrong. You shouldn't make decisions for other people without science. Of course, there's also logic, maths, etc., and I'm a big fan, but that stuff only holds water so long as it works. And we know it works (or where it works) because it's constantly tested. When it doesn't work it's a big deal.
I think you're probably right in that we likely agree on more things that we disagree on in this domain.
It might help if we narrowed what specifically you think Tyson is wrong about? That science is the one and only? Because I'm not sure that's actually something he's claimed?
I think I've linked this somewhere before but it feels relevant and it's fun so oh well
This is prolly going to sound weird to a lot of you, but I think science is anti-heuristics. What I mean is that science doesn't care how long it takes for results to come in. Adding time constraints on science is a horrible idea. If we put science on a pedestal and are always waiting for a conclusive result from science, then it would take forever to get anything done. A simple thing like eating a sandwich would take an exorbitant amount of time to conclude that the sandwich is worth eating. That's where my bias comes in. I think philosophy is by far the better method to conclude what decisions we make on a daily basis. the reason for this is that philosophy supposes certain assumptions about the world so getting a conclusion is a much faster method to decide things. I know this doesn't apply to every school of philosophy, but it should be apparent that conclusions come faster with philosophy than they do with science. If you disagree with this, I would like to hear your thoughts on it.
This is prolly going to sound weird to a lot of you, but I think science is anti-heuristics. What I mean is that science doesn't care how long it takes for results to come in.
If you want to make educated guesses about things because it is timely and practical then sure go ahead. That is called an 'hypothesis'. When you seen what happens in practice maybe you will be able to upgrade it to a theory. Although you probably should wait for a pier review before pushing your theory of life onto others being that you may be mistaken with your interpretation and evaluation of the evidence or you may find that it is situational and not repeatable.
Given that we make some decisions with partial information and far fewer decisions with a certainty (science), it should be clear that NOT all knowledge is science.
Science is never certain, it is tested and backed up with evidence. I will concede that not all knowledge is the result of scientific research, but I will assert that the vast majority of it is. The world as we know it today is the result of centuries of accumulated scientific research and if that wealth of knowledge was suddenly lost to us we would be cavemen once more.
What does a superstitious ignorant caveman have to teach me? Very little I don't already know I'd wager.
I am sure he has expertise in physics, which is the field in which he was educated, but all of his attempts I have seen which diverted outside that field have all been pure gibberish – including the attempts at defining what science is.
I can agree with this. He's got a good personality and got an appointment in the Federal govt, but his research CV isn't too impressive. Not knocking him, but I'd say he's an OK physicist who did well in the public sphere, which is a good thing since most scientists suck at this.
Dawkins is OK too, except his ideas in trying to get science more widely accepted. He had this idea that we teach kids the beauty of science instead of religion. The beauty of science? Seriously, science has a kind of beauty but it doesn't hold a candle to any music you care to listen to. Kind of a dumb idea.
But they're both trying to bridge the chasm between scientists and mainstream public. This is a good, needed effort, that nobody has succeeded at.
This is prolly going to sound weird to a lot of you, but I think science is anti-heuristics. What I mean is that science doesn't care how long it takes for results to come in. Adding time constraints on science is a horrible idea. If we put science on a pedestal and are always waiting for a conclusive result from science, then it would take forever to get anything done. A simple thing like eating a sandwich would take an exorbitant amount of time to conclude that the sandwich is worth eating. That's where my bias comes in. I think philosophy is by far the better method to conclude what decisions we make on a daily basis. the reason for this is that philosophy supposes certain assumptions about the world so getting a conclusion is a much faster method to decide things. I know this doesn't apply to every school of philosophy, but it should be apparent that conclusions come faster with philosophy than they do with science. If you disagree with this, I would like to hear your thoughts on it.
Yes and no. It feels like you're assuming scientific knowledge reverts to zero for every decision you make.
If you plan on eating a lot of sandwiches, I think it'd be pretty wise to look up what conclusions scientific research has come to.
- What bread has how much nutrients?
- How much do you need to eat to maintain mass?
- Does eating before bed affect sleep?
- Is eating in your room unhygienic?
- Does the quantity of bread you eat affect your health?
- Is butter better for you than margarine and how?
You're right in that it takes longer than heuristics. But for any operation you intend on repeating it's worth going and looking it up, because you're not the one doing all the arduous research. To be clear, I don't research everything - I'm not that organised... But anything I haven't done research into is not "knowledge" to me. It's just a guess, and in my experience I'm wrong about as often as not. People are intrinsically foolish and ignorant, and unfortunately we're all people.
My issue with philosophy is that you can turn yourself around on anything. When people act from a philosophical idea, it's more likely they're acting on bias that's justified using philosophical ideas. I can and do justify pretty much whatever I feel like at the time by cherry-picking a philosophical position that's congruent with it. This is fine for all the irrelevant shit, but if you're conducting any action worth philosophical inquiry, it's almost certainly worth scientific inquiry too.
If you want to make educated guesses about things because it is timely and practical then sure go ahead. That is called an 'hypothesis'. When you seen what happens in practice maybe you will be able to upgrade it to a theory. Although you probably should wait for a pier review before pushing your theory of life onto others being that you may be mistaken with your interpretation and evaluation of the evidence or you may find that it is situational and not repeatable.
If I wanted to prove something that would be the way to do it. If I am comfortable with the assumption made and don't want to pursue getting a theory published can you really call it science?
If I happen to come across scientific research about a particular thing, I might use that knowledge, but I don't go out of my way looking for it. In short, I am not a researcher and I will only look into the scientific research for something if I feel it is necessary to do so.
If you plan on eating a lot of sandwiches, I think it'd be pretty wise to look up what conclusions scientific research has come to.
- What bread has how much nutrients?
- How much do you need to eat to maintain mass?
- Does eating before bed affect sleep?
- Is eating in your room unhygienic?
- Does the quantity of bread you eat affect your health?
- Is butter better for you than margarine and how?
This is not a bad point. Something like what you are putting into your body makes sense to know how it will effect you. That said, If I want to try recreational drugs as a one time thing, I can either just do them once and be done with it or look up prolly a limited amount of info on the effects of said drug on me done once. The other think about this is that there is word of mouth that is not strictly "science". I hope you get what I mean when I say that.
You're right in that it takes longer than heuristics. But for any operation you intend on repeating it's worth going and looking it up, because you're not the one doing all the arduous research. To be clear, I don't research everything - I'm not that organised... But anything I haven't done research into is not "knowledge" to me. It's just a guess, and in my experience I'm wrong about as often as not. People are intrinsically foolish and ignorant, and unfortunately we're all people.
This might answer the question of "what is best in ________ scenario?" where you plan on doing that over and over. Science on things such as biology is something I would gladly adhere to, but something like "I am going to eat an apple. What apple do I eat?" is just counter productive to do research on IMO. Basically what I'm trying to get at is that common sense goes a long way without having to go through everything with a fine tooth comb.
My issue with philosophy is that you can turn yourself around on anything. When people act from a philosophical idea, it's more likely they're acting on bias that's justified using philosophical ideas. I can and do justify pretty much whatever I feel like at the time by cherry-picking a philosophical position that's congruent with it. This is fine for all the irrelevant shit, but if you're conducting any action worth philosophical inquiry, it's almost certainly worth scientific inquiry too.
See, to me, life is the irrelevant shit. We make way more decisions that are basically irrelevant to us in the grand scheme of things, but there are so many of them that we make that it amounts to a ton. In a way I am saying there is nothing wrong with justifying your irrelevant actions, but it is better to have a firm understand of why you are making those decisions. Also, I think justification in a way is lying to yourself. I think its better to know the real reason why you are choosing to giving up that hobby that you had done for 3 years. Its not even bad that you stop doing it, but just knowing why you are doing it instead of justifying it with a BS excuse you know isn't true is more harmful to you. Because I think philosophy is about learning your own position on things is why I think it is so important. Then again, maybe you are just way smarter than me and need to justify things for other reasons, IDK.
Drugs is probably one of the examples I'd do research on even if I was only doing it once. My friend just went and got methed up thinking they were doing cocaine. What you do and how you do it really matters, without taking into account serious shit like interactions etc.. I'd at least look up statistics, even if I'm not particularly interested in the neuro side of it.
I mean even MDMA, which has a pretty shiny reputation around my parts... It utterly fucks your dopamine supply for days. You're overdrawing your good feels account, and the bank's collector will come knocking in kind. Drugs are precisely the kind of thing that people make up a whole bunch of bullshit about that I wouldn't want to trust.
I wouldn't look up what sort of apple to eat, but if I was intending on buying fruit regularly I'd look up the value of eating apples vs. oranges. So yeah, there's a common sense there, there's always going to be more research than you can read, so there needs to be some criteria by which you choose what to look up and what to just wing. I would argue that the vast majority of people who have the option would improve their life through researching more rather than less, but by no means do I think that all decisions should be educated. Fuck it, it's an apple eh?
See, to me, life is the irrelevant shit. We make way more decisions that are basically irrelevant to us in the grand scheme of things, but there are so many of them that we make that it amounts to a ton. In a way I am saying there is nothing wrong with justifying your irrelevant actions, but it is better to have a firm understand of why you are making those decisions. Also, I think justification in a way is lying to yourself. I think its better to know the real reason why you are choosing to giving up that hobby that you had done for 3 years. Its not even bad that you stop doing it, but just knowing why you are doing it instead of justifying it with a BS excuse you know isn't true is more harmful to you. Because I think philosophy is about learning your own position on things is why I think it is so important.
Yeah, I'm struggling with a similar world view. Life gets in the way of... the other stuff. I'm trying to commit more to life though - studies suggest I'll be happier that way
Very much agreed that even the mere presence of justification suggests self-deception unless... justification is justified? If you feel the need to justify something and you don't know why, self reflect. I happen to feel the need to justify basically everything...
Then again, maybe you are just way smarter than me and need to justify things for other reasons, IDK.
I don't think intelligence is relevant. I justify my actions because I fear other people attributing deviance to me that I myself either know not to be true, or don't perceive. Social anxiety yo. Sometimes they even provide contingent explanations blaming comparative intelligence. It's unsettling.
Just as I got done posting that post I had a thought that it prolly mostly has to do with a personality difference. I don't have a problem not having a reason for why I do a lot of things. You come across like you do have to have a reason. That's a real difference. That being said, I think when I think I need to have a reason, I might try and reflect on it a bit more in terms of asking myself why I am doing that. You seem to be constantly analyzing everything so just making a decision on some thing is a little more difficult for you.
IDK, I just kinda do stuff. I am not always conscious of why I am doing what I am doing, but if I want to/have to I have no problem reflecting on the action. In a way it works the same way as muscle memory. I just sorta spring into action and do stuff without overanalyzing stuff. This isn't true for everything, because somethings I put a lot of thought into. But overall, I feel relatively comfortable just doing what seems natural for me.
Where did I say science is the only thing we have anyway? In my last post I just said you can't use only science, how can you possibly interpret that as, 'it's all we have'?
Also I really can't be bothered having this stupid debate again but I want to state I'm really fucking sick and tired of people who act like Einstein's ideas are, "dat intuition" and discussing them like they're some MaGiCaL shit when they're actually the product of dozens of years of hard work.
Not sure why you bother participating with this annoyed attitude of yours. Nobody said Einstein's ideas were pure intuition or magical inexplicable genius, stop pretending that you understand what other people are saying here. I know you really want to be the arrogant know-it-all who dismisses everything that's said with one liners, but in this case you'd actually have to push your reading comprehension to new limits or turn off your trolling.
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...
The point I want to make is that anyone who doesn't understand the essential function that people like Dawkins/Tyson serve should just think of it like this:
- hardly anyone in the world is scientifically literate
- they aim to make more people scientifically literate
- the only way to do this is to speak to people on a level they understand (layman's terms)
- this creates a lot of laymen who think they're scientifically literate when they're not, that's annoying for those of us who're really smart and stuff
- but maybe, just maybe, some of those laymen get into not only the laymen areas of science, but they actually start getting a REAL interest in doing science and if not doing, then funding or supporting or just doing something that really does help REAL science
People like Tyson/Dawkins are essential to science as a whole improving and flourishing. If they bore you or you don't like the stuff they do, then you're probably not part of the target audience because you're either just disinterested in science or you understand it enough to not need them to soft-translate the concepts for you.
Like if you want science to actually get better and be more useful, and to be utilized in better ways that have better effects on the world, then you'd support people like Tyson.
Also for what it's worth, I don't find Dawkins or Tyson interesting because I rarely feel like I need a scientific concept dumbed down or simplified. I'd rather read the actual studies - but that's just me.
I sometimes explain scientific concepts that I've read in studies to people who you'd otherwise not expect to care, and their faces literally fucking light up and they're so intrigued/amazed by what they hear - this is the function of people like Tyson/Dawkins. You don't need to personally value their works to recognize the potential value of their works for other people.
To put it another way: I don't need a wheelchair to walk but I recognize the significance of their existence to many people. Just because I can walk, doesn't mean wheelchairs are stupid or shit or obsolete.
So maybe try and expand your worldview beyond your own bubble of shitty epistemological elitism for 17 seconds and you'll stop having angst-attacks over whether or not Dawkins and Tyson meet your very high standards and realise that they're neither trying to and nor do they even need to in order to achieve their goals.
Unfortunately everyone is dumbing down science and some are dumbing down the dumbed down science. This seems to foster a lot of disbelief in the scientific concepts and creates a bad image for science.
Empiricism, often used by natural scientists, says that "knowledge is based on experience" and that "knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification."
So: rejects pure a-priori knowledge, embraces empirical evidence via falsification.
So the fact that you think I am against empiricism when I reject verificationism and embrace falsificationism, well... you probably see how idiotic that is. Verificationism was displaced, but not by empircisim as you say, but falsificationism.
So the fact that you think I am against empiricism when I reject verificationism and embrace falsificationism, well... you probably see how idiotic that is.
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.
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.
Science is never certain, it is tested and backed up with evidence. I will concede that not all knowledge is the result of scientific research, but I will assert that the vast majority of it is. The world as we know it today is the result of centuries of accumulated scientific research and if that wealth of knowledge was suddenly lost to us we would be cavemen once more.
What does a superstitious ignorant caveman have to teach me? Very little I don't already know I'd wager.
I don't understand this hypothetical that if all the knowledge we have today disappeared we would go back to being cavemen. Even cavemen had a certain knowledge about things like how to use tools and catch their prey. Its really a matter of how tightly or loosely you consider the dichotomy of science to be. When I picture the idea of science I think of doing a test of sorts and running experiments to give a conclusive result of information. I am guessing you would argue that science is doing this anytime. I don't think it is, I think science follows a critical criteria to be called such. I am not one to make measurements every time I observe something. I just come across knowledge naturally and use it to meet my ends. I am arguing here that experience is not the same as science.
I don't understand this hypothetical that if all the knowledge we have today disappeared we would go back to being cavemen. Even cavemen had a certain knowledge about things like how to use tools and catch their prey. Its really a matter of how tightly or loosely you consider the dichotomy of science to be. When I picture the idea of science I think of doing a test of sorts and running experiments to give a conclusive result of information. I am guessing you would argue that science is doing this anytime. I don't think it is, I think science follows a critical criteria to be called such. I am not one to make measurements every time I observe something. I just come across knowledge naturally and use it to meet my ends. I am arguing here that experience is not the same as science.
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.
This site uses cookies to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies. We have no personalisation nor analytics --- especially no Google.
