Philosophical problems with science.
December 12, 2013 at 8:00 am
(This post was last modified: December 12, 2013 at 8:04 am by I and I.)
(December 12, 2013 at 7:18 am)genkaus Wrote:(December 12, 2013 at 12:25 am)I and I Wrote: To a simplistic stupid person an attack on science is somehow an implication of a support for religion. If anyone here implies this from this post then I will gladly call you a dumb ass.
To a simplistic, stupid person, not understanding how science works somehow gives them a standing on indicting it. Since you are such a person, I'll gladly call you dumbass.
(December 12, 2013 at 12:25 am)I and I Wrote: If science is a search for facts
It isn't. Science is a search for the explanation of facts.
(December 12, 2013 at 12:25 am)I and I Wrote: then it is based on an ever changing series of what are called facts, what a "fact" is, is determined by time in history, place in a culture and environment.
No - what a "fact" is, is determined by human perception of reality, which, in turn, is merely affected by time in history, place in culture and environment. The errors in human perception are not an indictment of science, especially since science has safeguards in place to correct those errors.
(December 12, 2013 at 12:25 am)I and I Wrote: This means there is no reason to hold science as anything "better" than religion.
Ofcourse there is. Starting with better epistemology and ending with better results.
(December 12, 2013 at 12:25 am)I and I Wrote: Science is the honest bullshitter, they honestly admit that science changes and methods change and that there is no "absolute".
The only reason why science doesn't deal in absolutes is because it recognizes human perception and reasoning as an essential part of the process and therefore the errors associated also become a part of it.
(December 12, 2013 at 12:25 am)I and I Wrote: Which begs the question: If scientists know that science changes then what are scientists doing? Do they believe they get closer to a fact or a truth? How would they know they are closer?
They know it because more and more facts support their explanations, while the margin of error grows less.
(December 12, 2013 at 12:25 am)I and I Wrote: If science is claimed to be a collection of "truths" then what is truth? How is a truth determined?
Truth is the measure of correspondence between a statement and the state of reality. And that is how it is determined.
What "reality" is is different depending on ones environment they grow up in, and what reality is is a philosophical question not a scientific one.
"The margin of error grows less". How would one know that this is the case?
Assimilating facts to support a position is hardly a way to a "truth", what facts are chosen or left out is based on human bias.
Next
Example: corporations conducting experiments on the safety of their products often are biased because of what facts are ignored, exaggerated parts can change ones perspective of a scientific study. It's still a scientific study by definition however the bias factor and subjective factors in analyzing the data in the study make it both scientific and bullshit.
Tobacco companies....the end.
