Philosophical problems with science.

[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.

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?

[MindForgedManacle]

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?

Perhaps you should learn what a scientific fact is, for starters. Secondly, science isn't a mere hunt for empirical facts, it's an attempt at a systemized understanding of reality through accurate predictive models.

Further, the underlined bit is true of everything. Words and understandings of concepts change over time; this is just unavoidable, so pointing it out is an obvious non sequitur. And as for your bit directly after that, puh-lease. The difference between science and religion alone is that given that people tend to see something better, in this context, as that which is predictively accurate, empirically verifiable (where applicable) and pragmatically useful.
Of course science and its methods change over time; what doesn't? As we learn more about the world and the issues with certain philosophical and metaphysical assumptions, of course the way scientists tackle answering certain problems will change with it. That's just a red herring there.

I suppose they know they are closer to, but perhaps never truly reaching, truth-y conclusions when the accuracy of predictions are made.

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

Science isn't ever, to my knowledge, defined as 'a collection of truths'. At best, science is probably defined, as I noted earlier, as something like 'a systematic enterprise of accurate empirical predictions about reality'.

Science, from what I can tell, has an interesting interplay between accepting the correspondence theory of truth (empirical facts and observation) and the coherence theory of truth (attempts at coherent system-building and reduction). So clearly it would determine what is true by empirically verifying what is fact.

[Cyberman]

There is a biblical analogy in that whole bit about the merits of giving a man a fish rather than teaching him to fish. Science would be the teaching him to fish part; learning the underlying mechanism as to why things work as well as how.

For example: the observation might be made that chewing willow bark eases pain and reduces fever. That's the collection of facts, truths if you like - the bark's effect would reasonably be expected to work a thousand years in the future as it does now. Further analysis would reveal that the active ingredient in the bark, the bit that actually does the pain-killing, is a chemical called salycilic acid (named after the Latin for willow). Further research reveals what happens in the body to produce the analgesic effect, and so lead to other more improved painkillers. The observation told us that it works; the investigation - the science - told us how it works.

[Ryantology]

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.

Okay, I'll call it an implication of support for deliberate ignorance, which is basically religion once you organize it.

[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.

Okay, I'll call it an implication of support for deliberate ignorance, which is basically religion once you organize it.

So it's a religion to point out the philosophical problems with science????

If you believe science is "more truthful" than religion then explain how this can be considering that science is not about absolutes anyway.

Religion is a dishonest bullshitter while science is a more honest bullshitter. Both are bullshit and completely relative to time in history and not to any absolute truths or facts.

[Angrboda]

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.

Nobody here gives a flying fuck who you call a dumb ass because you yourself are a massive dumb ass.

As to the rest of it, yes, popular conceptions of science are sufficiently naive and in error to be considered simply wrong. Professional understanding of the subject is incomplete, and, at best, a work in progress, with a long road ahead of it. But your complaint seems to be little more than a strain of anti-intellectualism which argues that it is wise to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Yes, we don't understand perfectly, nor even well, why the method of science works, does that mean we should abandon it, or put its credibility on a par with things that are demonstrably ineffective? Yes, our conceptions of science, both popular and professional, are in need of reform. What do you suggest? Or are you just here to play the part of chicken little, and preparing to exit after crying that the sky is falling?

[Ryantology]

You're not pointing out the philosophical problems with science. You're inventing attributes for science, attributes we don't accept as defining science (it's not a 'collection of truths'), and attacking your own invention. Pontificate, if you will, on the philosophical problems of that.

I accept science as the best explanation for things according to the tools and understanding we currently have. As those tools become more advanced and our understanding keeps pace, the best explanations we have will accordingly evolve. It is a method of explaining the universe with a success record unmatched by any other. So yes, if you're attacking that, then you're promoting deliberate ignorance.

[max-greece]

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 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.

[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.

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 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.

[max-greece]

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.

Its the quest for knowledge and understanding. That isn't tangible in the sense of a bacon sandwich but its a process. You might regard the process as flawed - maybe it is, but it is the best we have.

In some ways it does resemble both religion and philosophy in respect of being an attempt to understand, but it exceeds both of the above by being based primarily on experiment.

It is also predictive - but if those predictions cannot be tested it handles those as a hypothesis until such time as experimental data can solidify it into a theory.

I just don't get the problem.