RE: Science Poll!
March 23, 2022 at 11:07 am
(This post was last modified: March 23, 2022 at 11:08 am by Jehanne.)
(March 23, 2022 at 9:21 am)HappySkeptic Wrote:(March 22, 2022 at 7:56 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Definition #1 says: 1) Science is a self-correcting construct through which we discover truths about the universe. Scientific inquiry is rigorously unbiased and self-critical, and is applicable to any area of human endeavor. Our knowledge corresponds to how objective reality is, independent of human existence.
[emphasis added]
So if you're saying that we'll never understand the true nature of reality, and that all our knowledge is in a human framework, it sounds as if you're much closer to #2: "2) Science is a human construct with all the biases and cultural influences that entails, and is inextricably linked to war, politics and business. The knowledge it produces merely imposes order on the chaos of phenomena to make it comprehensible to humans."
Although, as I said earlier, #2 has its benefits.
Both his definitions are crap. They provide a false dichotomy. Science is a pragmatic endeavor. While science does postulate an "actual reality" that is being discovered, it never claims that theories are anything more than useful constructs. To claim anything more would be metaphysics. Yes, some scientists do have their own metaphysical views, but the endeavor of science is agnostic to it.
The OP makes #1 into a religion of scientism, and #2 into "there is no reality but what I experience, and science is corrupt".
We'll have to agree to disagree. Darwinian evolution is a fact; ditto for the expansion of the Universe. These are facets of Reality; they are facts, not theories. In principle, they could be falsified, but, they never will be.
I see nothing wrong with scientism.
