"The New Atheists are back — and dumber than ever"

[robvalue]

LadyforCamus:

Thank you

Indeed, science never claims to have all the answers. But the idea that these "other methods" take over where science leaves off is absurd. Do these methods produce reliable results about reality, or not? If they do, they are science. If they don't, they are worthless.

I think the very word "science" has some stigma attached, like it's some evil corporation. It's simply a method, which adapts and improves. I've tried to coin the phrase "science-esque" for any kind of method which attempts to use evidence and reason to reach results, even if it's not formally science.

Not knowledge about reality. Knowledge about abstract concepts, which may or may not have anything to do with reality.

I don't know what this has to do with anything. If "other methods" produce reliable results in gaining knowledge about reality, they would be science. By definition. You can't just say they do what science does but aren't science.

Why think the concepts in question don't figure in our reality, such that knowledge of the concepts amounts to knowledge about reality?

Because mathematics is not required to have anything to do with reality. All that is required is internal consistency. Of course a lot of mathematics has been set up to mirror reality, so that the results do indeed provide very useful results. And the evidence that this is the case is usually incredibly obvious: we can test addition of integers for example, to our heart's content.

However, any abstract system that may appear to start off resembling reality and then produces a "result" has to be checked to see whether that result still resembles reality. It is extremely likely simplifying assumptions have been made, and this may mean the answer ends up being relevant only to an ideal reality where all these assumptions are true.

There have literally been areas of mathematics that were developed that had no use. They had no practical application. It wasn't until much later that anyone found a use for them. There isn't any guarantee that any new piece of maths will have any use ever. I started a PhD in a weird mathematical system where "lengths" were measured in a very nonstandard way. It didn't appear to resemble reality in any shape or form, but it was internally consistent. It wasn't even based on it in the first instance.

So basically, when maths (or any abstract system) is trying to model reality, we are taking a virtual artificial model and then manipulating it. We then achieve some "results". These results are true for our idealised version of reality that follows just the rules we have set up for the system. But is it close enough to reality to mean anything and be accurate? The only way to find out is to compare results. Make predictions, collect evidence and see how accurate the model is. It may be extremely accurate, it may be vaguely accurate or it may be way off. It may even produce nonsensical results if you're not careful, and don't apply real restraints to abstract problems, such as lengths having to be positive.

This is why philosophical arguments can never be considered evidence. They produce a model of reality, manipulate it in an abstract space, and produce a result that is as true as the initial assumptions. If those assumptions simplify reality too much, or are simply wrong, the results are useless. How to find out? Collect evidence.

How to check what one person is saying is true, without just believing them or not believing them? Collect evidence.

If you're interested in reality, then you have to go back to reality to check your results. This is science.