Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 6:25 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Science Poll!
#11
RE: Science Poll!
The two tend to be in constant tension. Science types tend to overlook that science is a form of discourse, and in that it is vulnerable to sociological effects.
[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]
Reply
#12
RE: Science Poll!
(March 22, 2022 at 11:28 am)Istvan Wrote: Please choose the option you feel better describes scientific inquiry:

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.

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.

#2 is certainly closer to the truth. 

I'd add a little bit of positivity, though, in that fairly often, despite the war, politics, and business, we get genuine benefits. Like improved dentistry. Also I like the Internet really well.
Reply
#13
RE: Science Poll!
(March 22, 2022 at 7:04 pm)Belacqua Wrote:
(March 22, 2022 at 11:28 am)Istvan Wrote: Please choose the option you feel better describes scientific inquiry:

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.

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.

#2 is certainly closer to the truth. 

I'd add a little bit of positivity, though, in that fairly often, despite the war, politics, and business, we get genuine benefits. Like improved dentistry. Also I like the Internet really well.

So whence lies the dividing line in science between objectivity and bias?

I say a more honest statement would be, "Science strives to be objective. And has made significant progress in doing so. Some biases still plague science and make it less objective than it could be. But still, it's remarkably objective."
Reply
#14
RE: Science Poll!
(March 22, 2022 at 7:11 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:
(March 22, 2022 at 7:04 pm)Belacqua Wrote: #2 is certainly closer to the truth. 

I'd add a little bit of positivity, though, in that fairly often, despite the war, politics, and business, we get genuine benefits. Like improved dentistry. Also I like the Internet really well.

So whence lies the dividing line in science between objectivity and bias?

I say a more honest statement would be, "Science strives to be objective. And has made significant progress in doing so. Some biases still plague science and make it less objective than it could be. But still, it's remarkably objective."

The human mind is inherently limited, with built-in biases. Many of these are not like homophobia, which can be educated away. This is more like the inability of rats to comprehend prime numbers. Their minds just don't go that far. 

We are animals who evolved a certain way, and we see the world in that way.
Reply
#15
RE: Science Poll!
(March 22, 2022 at 7:14 pm)Belacqua Wrote: The human mind is inherently limited, with built-in biases. Many of these are not like homophobia, which can be educated away. This is more like the inability of rats to comprehend prime numbers. Their minds just don't go that far. 

We are animals who evolved a certain way, and we see the world in that way.

Science gives us pragmatic truth, not ultimate truth.  We will likely never understand the true nature of reality, but we'll darn well give it a try.

The scientific theories themselves are not truth.  They provide a framework for making predictions.  That framework is very human, and is always going to be in terms that humans can understand.  It isn't a god's view on reality.

But hey, a scientific theory is literally our best claim at actually having knowledge.  Nothing else (except the reality of our own experience) comes close.
Reply
#16
RE: Science Poll!
(March 22, 2022 at 7:20 pm)HappySkeptic Wrote: Science gives us pragmatic truth, not ultimate truth.

So there are two kinds of truth.

Quote:  We will likely never understand the true nature of reality, but we'll darn well give it a try.

The scientific theories themselves are not truth.  They provide a framework for making predictions.  That framework is very human, and is always going to be in terms that humans can understand.  It isn't a god's view on reality.

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. 
Reply
#17
RE: Science Poll!
(March 22, 2022 at 7:56 pm)Belacqua Wrote:
(March 22, 2022 at 7:20 pm)HappySkeptic Wrote: Science gives us pragmatic truth, not ultimate truth.

So there are two kinds of truth.

Quote:  We will likely never understand the true nature of reality, but we'll darn well give it a try.

The scientific theories themselves are not truth.  They provide a framework for making predictions.  That framework is very human, and is always going to be in terms that humans can understand.  It isn't a god's view on reality.

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.

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. 

Yeah, the benefit resides entirely, no doubt, in the fact that it seems you to make it possible for pure bullshit to pretend it is not intrinsically more bullshitty than partial truths.
Reply
#18
RE: Science Poll!
(March 22, 2022 at 7:14 pm)Belacqua Wrote:
(March 22, 2022 at 7:11 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: So whence lies the dividing line in science between objectivity and bias?

I say a more honest statement would be, "Science strives to be objective. And has made significant progress in doing so. Some biases still plague science and make it less objective than it could be. But still, it's remarkably objective."

The human mind is inherently limited, with built-in biases. Many of these are not like homophobia, which can be educated away. This is more like the inability of rats to comprehend prime numbers. Their minds just don't go that far. 

We are animals who evolved a certain way, and we see the world in that way.

Nullius in verba.
Reply
#19
RE: Science Poll!
(March 22, 2022 at 7:14 pm)Belacqua Wrote:
(March 22, 2022 at 7:11 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: So whence lies the dividing line in science between objectivity and bias?

I say a more honest statement would be, "Science strives to be objective. And has made significant progress in doing so. Some biases still plague science and make it less objective than it could be. But still, it's remarkably objective."

The human mind is inherently limited, with built-in biases. Many of these are not like homophobia, which can be educated away. This is more like the inability of rats to comprehend prime numbers. Their minds just don't go that far. 

We are animals who evolved a certain way, and we see the world in that way.

And it may well be that we are incapable of finding certain truths about the universe because of our low capacity.

That doesn't invalidate what we *do* find and test.

Science is a human endeavor that attempts to find truths about the universe. it does so via successive approximations and testing.

There is no claim that it finds 'ultimate reality' or that human biases don't exist. Nonetheless, it does manage to find out things about the universe.

Maybe, just maybe, if we find another race with more capacity, we can expand our understanding to the limit of our abilities or even have some of those limits pointed out to us. Until then, it is a human endeavor that attempts to deal with the biases we know about.
Reply
#20
RE: Science Poll!
(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".
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Science Poll! Istvan 9 1268 September 25, 2022 at 8:30 am
Last Post: Jehanne
  Not A Poll: Does Motivation Affect Morality? BrianSoddingBoru4 146 15516 May 24, 2016 at 11:01 pm
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  Another Free-will poll, please bear with me! Aroura 53 6440 May 29, 2015 at 7:08 pm
Last Post: Whateverist
  Poll - 'Waiting for godot' a significant Philosophical Work? ManMachine 15 4368 January 21, 2015 at 11:41 pm
Last Post: Rev. Rye
  "Free Will" Belief/Disbelief Poll Edwardo Piet 91 32794 November 7, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Last Post: tackattack



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)