The Ownership of Science

[Neo-Scholastic]

---

Yes, of course. IMO science doesn't see teleology and normative aspects of reality because the assumptions of a rationally ordered universe and the efficacy of human reason are already in the background as a prerequisite to any scientific inquiry. Nevertheless, whether or not either of [those] assumptions are real or only apparent and why are theological and philosophical questions about which IMHO reasonable people can disagree and epistemic humility is warranted.

---

What you mean is science rejects your metaphysics.  There's plenty of teleology and norms in science, just not on the hooks you want to hang them on.

I'm saying science has very little to say about the ontology of things like functions but uses them anyway.

[brewer]

Is today an Orthodox holiday I'm not aware of?

[brewer]

Yo, Gary, you on a pilgrimage or what?

[Jehanne]

---

---

What you mean is science rejects your metaphysics.  There's plenty of teleology and norms in science, just not on the hooks you want to hang them on.

I'm saying science has very little to say about the ontology of things like functions but uses them anyway.

Functions, such as adaptable traits in Nature?

[The Architect Of Fate]

I'm saying science has very little to say about the ontology of things like functions but uses them anyway.

Rubbish

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I'm saying science has very little to say about the ontology of things like functions but uses them anyway.

Rubbish

Really? I thought much of science is devoted to curing cancer. 




---that's just my way of saying I have no idea what you are talking about. I'd really appreciate it if you'd dumb it down a few notches.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I'm saying science has very little to say about the ontology of things like functions but uses them anyway.

Functions, such as adaptable traits in Nature?

Yeah, kinda. I was thinking more of hearts and it seems obvious, to non-philosopher sorts, that the function of hearts is to pump blood. Medical facts seem grounded in an assumption that body parts should function properly. But if parts, functions, and propriety are all ficticious what does that make medicine?

[Anomalocaris]

Functions, such as adaptable traits in Nature?

Yeah, kinda. I was thinking more of hearts and it seems obvious, to non-philosopher sorts, that the function of hearts is to pump blood. Medical facts seem grounded in an assumption that body parts should function properly. But if parts, functions, and propriety are all ficticious what does that make medicine?

”function” is nothing more than a essentially arbitrary cognitive catagorizatiion  of tiny subset of the interplay between system elementary particles that emerges from the rules that govern their mutural interaction, and the complexity of organization.   it helps limited minds model reality at a coarse level, but it does not actually exist in any fundamental way in reality.

Function is fiction.   The fact that certain  configuration of elementary particles we call active ingredients interacts with certain other configuration of elementary particles we call vital organs repeat for while longer  rather than stop sooner certain aspects of its behavior we can vital biological function is what makes medicine.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Yeah, kinda. I was thinking more of hearts and it seems obvious, to non-philosopher sorts, that the function of hearts is to pump blood. Medical facts seem grounded in an assumption that body parts should function properly. But if parts, functions, and propriety are all ficticious what does that make medicine?

[Pat Mustard]

This is a really fucking stupid question.  Science is simply a way of describing reality, in fact it is by far the best and most accurate one that humanity has found to date.

Agree. It's like doing a poll to say "Who should use Maths". It actually doesn't make any sense.

The problem I see is that even though theists will point to science, they don't use science empirically because they start with the outcome they are trying to substantiate, and then work backwards, cherry picking those pieces of science (or cherry picking those pieces of science that they perceive to be lacking) that support their argument. 

Science doesn't work that way. To truly "science" one needs to start with no preconceived expectations and iteratively follow the evidence, whilst inviting, and in fact expecting to pivot on previous findings when new evidence comes to light. 

I have found theists do not employ scientific method or approach, rather defining "Science" as "human knowledge about the world at a point in time" and then gleefully using arbitrary questions that today can't yet be answered as proof that there must be a creator or higher being to fill in those gaps. That is not science.

It's one of the few things that I use when the sentiments in my sig get me down too much.

---

One of the primary characteristics of hoaxers and promoters of pseudo-science is to accuse everyone else of being a shill for something they don't trust.  Just sayin'.

Gamers are the worst about this. There is an online card game I play, so (of course) there are theories flying around about the broken/rigged shuffle algorithm. But anyone who scrutinizes those claims or questions them is a "fanboi" or a "shill." Like... I never once gave a fuck about the integrity of this card game or the shuffler. I was just questioning claims.

If anthropologists want to learn about the origins of religious beliefs, all they need to do is create an online card game with a working shuffler. Then observe forum posts about that game. I think an unknown causal chain + apophenia are the primary ingredients for religious belief.

Every time I boot up my copy of Civ 4, I pray a small, short, heart felt prayer to Random Number Geesus:

---

What no sarcasm smiley? That's unpossible. Plus we also need a hug smiley featuring US Grant

---