Philosophical problems with science.

[Angrboda]

I just don't get the problem.

The problem is, he's a dumbass.

[Ryantology]

"Explaining observations" is determined by ones historical place in time, education therefore class, ideologies, religions, all which can and often do form what kinds of observations and questions are formed. Meaning that science is not based in anything tangible just like religion isn't.

So, another anti-science advocate for solipsism, I guess?

[Jacob(smooth)]

Actually, in its purest form, science is a method for finding stuff out.

[feeling]

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.

If science is a search for facts 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. This means there is no reason to hold science as anything "better" than religion. Science is the honest bullshitter, they honestly admit that science changes and methods change and that there is no "absolute". 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?

If science is claimed to be a collection of "truths" then what is truth? How is a truth determined?

Science is science exactly because methods change and there are no absolutes. How would you search for truth if you have an absolute you must take on faith and can't change or investigate?
They know they get closer to the truth by refuting the bad theories and proving the good theories. And using the truth which are established to find new truths and prove them with logical explanations and experiments.
That's how you get closer to the truth.
In religion you must take something on faith even if it could be a lie. That's as far away from the truth as you can get.
If you are serious when you write something like this it saddens me.

[genkaus]

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.

If science is a search for facts

It isn't. Science is a search for the explanation of facts.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[I and I]

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.

If science is a search for facts

It isn't. Science is a search for the explanation of facts.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[genkaus]

What "reality" is is different depending on ones environment they grow up in,

No, it isn't.

and what reality is is a philosophical question not a scientific one.

It's both.

"The margin of error grows less". How would one know that this is the case?

The number of facts contradicting the explanation grow less.

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.

Not in science, they are not.

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.

Actually, its not a scientific study in that case. If there is any indication that certain facts have been exaggerated or ignored, then that constitutes grounds for dismissing the results as invalid.

[Mudhammam]

Science is not about facts. Science is about explaining observations in a consistent way. As new observations come to light that contradict existing theories those are thrown out and newer, more all encompassing theories take their place.

If your question is as to how we know science is advancing then an easy indicator it to look around and see the products of science and whether they are improving or not.

I'd be surprised if you didn't see improvement, personally.

"Explaining observations" is determined by ones historical place in time, education therefore class, ideologies, religions, all which can and often do form what kinds of observations and questions are formed. Meaning that science is not based in anything tangible just like religion isn't.

The irony that you say this while you type on your IPad or smartphone or laptop, oblivious to the tangible results science and *actual* knowledge has produced. So proud and ignorant.

[LostLocke]

It's very simple....

From all his posts on this site and back on TTA, before he was banned, I&I made it very clear he doesn't what science is or how it works.
So, all his opinions and thoughts on it are wrong, invalid, and unimportant.

---

"Explaining observations" is determined by ones historical place in time, education therefore class, ideologies, religions, all which can and often do form what kinds of observations and questions are formed.

So, if an American scientist within recent history said he discovered the rate of gravitational acceleration on Earth is 9.8m/s², you're saying that rate will be different for people who are poor than it is for rich people? That rate will be different for a conservative than it is a liberal? That rate will be different for a socialist than it will be for a capitalist? That rate will be different for someone from 1700 than it will be for someone from 2200? That rate will be different for someone who flunked high school than it will be for someone with 5 masters degrees?

[Angrboda]

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.

My culture and philosophy do not acknowledge this as a valid perception of reality. Therefore you are wrong.