Criticism of Modern Science

[Anselm33]

what sorts of theories can science have? why do you think that a theory about morality cannot be confirmed by reproducible measurements? for example, if masturbation is immoral (i.e. bad for people), there ought to be some evidence of that fact. that fact is either realized or not in the course of human experience. it may be difficult to get data, but there is nothing that prevents science in principle from studying such things.

i see science merely as our best attempts to not fool ourselves about what is true and false. i don’t see any area of study as outside of scientific inquiry unless the area itself is simply defined as such, i.e. the supernatural.

rocinante

you’re wrong about your definition of science. As a scientist, I think the definition of Fr. Jaki (who did his graduate work in cosmic ray physics) is appropriate. Science is the study of that which can be quantitated (measured) as a confirmation of theories. You’re confusing rational inquiry with science. Science is rational inquiry, but not all rational inquiry is science. To get that picture, if it isn’t clear to you, draw a Venn diagram… Big circle is rational inquiry. Little circle inside the big circle is science.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Angry
*
Scientific experts are SUPPOSED to change or at least question their old views when contradictory evidence comes up. That is what separates them from most other experts.*

Could you give some examples of “other experts”? I think experts in any field are experts because they value improvements in their field based on new knowledge. For example, an ice skater who learns a new move that has never been discovered before is quick to adopt it if that move proves to be do-able in spite of its degree of difficulty. A poet who discovers a hitherto unknown rhythmic or rhyming device, if he is an expert in writing poetry, will not be reluctant to use it.

The first 2 examples that come to mind are Communist theoreticians and Conservative pundits. Then of course there are shamans and other (official) keepers of tradition.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Rocinante

*suppose that scientists discovered that the communion wafers actually undergo a scientifically detectable change at a point during the mass. how many catholics do you think would respond to such news by saying, “that is entirely irrelevant. science can never say anything of interest about spiritual matters.” i suspect that such news would be trumpeted to high heaven. don’t you? *

This is a truly ridiculous statement. How is science going to prove any such thing? Can you put Jesus Christ under a microscope? What priest or Catholic would give you permission to do such a thing? You would have to steal the Communion wafer to study it. So much for the morals and wisdom of science … that it holds all reality to be its own bailiwick.

However, if science can tie AIDS to homosexual sex or drug use, that would be a useful fact to condemn homosexual sex and drug abuse. Just as when science can tie lung cancer to cigarettes, that is a useful fact to help in the condemnation of tobacco. Likewise, if pornographic movies can be studied to show the dehumanizing effects on the actors in them (suicide, drug abuse, venereal diseases, etc.) then a statistical result should prove informative. However, the underlying principle behind all such behavior is that it is self destructive. We really don’t need science to tell us that self destructive behavior is immoral.

So science is only valuable if it confirms beliefs you already hold?

If it seems to disprove existing prejudices and beliefs it must be wrong?

 

[Rocinante]

Rocinante

given that there are lots of differences of opinion on which laws are god’s laws and which ones are not, then the way to decide which one’s are really moral is to inquire rationally into the question of what is good for humanity and what is not.

One man’s rationality is another man’s insanity. People who are determined to be irrational cannot be persuaded to be rational.

everyone wants to be rational. i’ve never meant anyone who does not to have good reasons for his beliefs. that doesn’t mean that the work of persuasion is easy to do, but the more conclusive the scientific evidence that can be gathered in support of a belief the better, no?

how else could we hope to get agreement on morals than rational argumentation? are you recommending some alternative here?

 

[Rocinante]

you’re wrong about your definition of science. As a scientist, I think the definition of Fr. Jaki (who did his graduate work in cosmic ray physics) is appropriate. Science is the study of that which can be quantitated (measured) as a confirmation of theories. You’re confusing rational inquiry with science. Science is rational inquiry, but not all rational inquiry is science. To get that picture, if it isn’t clear to you, draw a Venn diagram… Big circle is rational inquiry. Little circle inside the big circle is science.

i don’t see any important distinction between science and rational inquiry. at least i don’t find it important to try to make any distinction. science is a spirit of inquiry in which we try not to fool ourselves about what is true. as a body of knowledge it includes whatever we have good reason to think is true ad excludes whatever we have good reason to think is false.

from the latin root of course “science” just means “knowledge.” it is simply our justified beliefs.

 

[Anselm33]

i don’t see any important distinction between science and rational inquiry. at least i don’t find it important to try to make any distinction. science is a spirit of inquiry in which we try not to fool ourselves about what is true. as a body of knowledge it includes whatever we have good reason to think is true ad excludes whatever we have good reason to think is false.

from the latin root of course “science” just means “knowledge.” it is simply our justified beliefs.

Are you a scientist? Have you read any philosophy of science books? From your answers, I would judge not. The reason science has been successful as an enterprise is that it can provide objective measures of truth, i.e. measurements which can be verified independently of subjective judgment. I’ll go back to my original distinction between rational inquiry and science; and this is not to make rational inquiry less important than science. But they aren’t the same, and to say they are is to try to trade on the success science has achieved (with its mathematical tools), which is what the so-called social sciences (an oxymoron) have tried without using the basics that make science work: well formulated mathematical theory and measurements to confirm the theory.
And, by the way, your etymology would be appropriate if we lived in the 13th Century. Unfortunately (and I do mean unfortunately) we don’t.

 

[Rocinante]

Are you a scientist? Have you read any philosophy of science books? From your answers, I would judge not. The reason science has been successful as an enterprise is that it can provide objective measures of truth, i.e. measurements which can be verified independently of subjective judgment. I’ll go back to my original distinction between rational inquiry and science; and this is not to make rational inquiry less important than science. But they aren’t the same, and to say they are is to try to trade on the success science has achieved (with its mathematical tools), which is what the so-called social sciences (an oxymoron) have tried without using the basics that make science work: well formulated mathematical theory and measurements to confirm the theory.
And, by the way, your etymology would be appropriate if we lived in the 13th Century. Unfortunately (and I do mean unfortunately) we don’t.

i’m not sure that there is much point in arguing with someone who thinks that we were better off in the 13th century. you suggest that i haven’t read enough philosophy, but i daresay you haven’t read enough history. at any rate, i’m not going to get into a pissing contest on who has a better education or more published research or more patents. the issue in defining science is the simple matter that the meaning of a word is its usage. open any dictionary and you’ll find agreement with my position on what science means. it is used in more broad and more narrow senses. your definition is needlessly narrow, or narrow in order to support some agenda of yours (discrediting biological and social sciences? propping up physicists?). at any rate, the word science is rarely limited to apply only to mathematical modeling. please check any dictionary before getting back to me. or don’t. (you know there are countries that seem to still be living in the 13th century. perhaps you’d be more at home in one of them.)

 

[buffalo]

i’m not sure that there is much point in arguing with someone who thinks that we were better off in the 13th century. you suggest that i haven’t read enough philosophy, but i daresay you haven’t read enough history. at any rate, i’m not going to get into a pissing contest on who has a better education or more published research or more patents. the issue in defining science is the simple matter that the meaning of a word is its usage. open any dictionary and you’ll find agreement with my position on what science means. it is used in more broad and more narrow senses. your definition is needlessly narrow, or narrow in order to support some agenda of yours (discrediting biological and social sciences? propping up physicists?). at any rate, the word science is rarely limited to apply only to mathematical modeling. please check any dictionary before getting back to me. or don’t. (you know there are countries that seem to still be living in the 13th century. perhaps you’d be more at home in one of them.)

Could a non-technologic society experience more joyful lives?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Angry
*
So science is only valuable if it confirms beliefs you already hold?*

No, science is always valuable, unless it is used for immoral purposes.
*
If it seems to disprove existing prejudices and beliefs it must be wrong?*

No, but when it challenges existing beliefs it must do so in a rational manner. And it must not exceed its realm of authority when doing so. Example, science cannot disprove the idea of God, though you find a good many scientists who believe that because science cannot find God there is no reason to believe in God.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

buffalo

*Could a non-technologic society experience more joyful lives? *

Could a non-technological society bring the human race to the brink of annihilation with nuclear weapons?

How joyful is that thought?

 

[Rocinante]

Could a non-technologic society experience more joyful lives?

if you mean no tools whatsoever, i think a non-technological human society is an oxymoron.

what is suppose you are asking is whether a society with more advanced technology always means a better society. of course it does not. but the 13th century? are you kidding me? where exactly in the world was life better in the 13th century than it is for most people in the US today? i guess you could have had a good life if you were part of a privileged over class, but let’s be real. life was pretty lousy back then. that is one reason why stories of heaven used to be so important to people.

 

[Rocinante]

buffalo

*Could a non-technologic society experience more joyful lives? *

Could a non-technological society bring the human race to the brink of annihilation with nuclear weapons?

How joyful is that thought?

there are certainly bad technologies like all those torture devices used on suspected heretics and blasphemers in the inquisition, but i’m sure glad i’ll have food, clothes, and a warm house to live in this winter. i also really like my iphone though i am sure it could be used for evil in the wrong hands.

 

[buffalo]

if you mean no tools whatsoever, i think a non-technological human society is an oxymoron.

what is suppose you are asking is whether a society with more advanced technology always means a better society. of course it does not. but the 13th century? are you kidding me? where exactly in the world was life better in the 13th century than it is for most people in the US today? i guess you could have had a good life if you were part of a privileged over class, but let’s be real. life was pretty lousy back then. that is one reason why stories of heaven used to be so important to people.

Now see you went right back to the fallacy. So heaven is not more important now because we have heaven on earth? Wow…

 

[Rocinante]

Now see you went right back to the fallacy. So heaven is not more important now because we have heaven on earth? Wow…

this isn’t an issue of logical fallacy. it is just a public opinion sort of thing. people aren’t as inclined to seek escape from this world because they don’t see this world as such a bad place. the dream of a blissful after-life has been replaced by the hope that the lives of our children and grandchildren can be better than ours and that our lives on earth can help make the world better.

this of course has nothing to do with whether or not the afterlife is for real. it is just to say that it is not so important to people as it once was.

ascending to heaven also doesn’t make so much scientific sense as it used to. “above us only stars.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Rocinante

there are certainly bad technologies like all those torture devices used on suspected heretics and blasphemers in the inquisition, but i’m sure glad i’ll have food, clothes, and a warm house to live in this winter. i also really like my iphone though i am sure it could be used for evil in the wrong hands

Those Inquisition tools of torture were child’s play compared to the suffering produced by American nuclear weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Think also of that excellent Nazi technology used to kill Jews, Catholics, and Protestants in the death camps of Germany and Poland.

Think also of how insignificant you iphone will be if the world is reduced to nuclear ash … thanks to Einstein and modern technology.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Rocinante

*this of course has nothing to do with whether or not the afterlife is for real. it is just to say that it is not so important to people as it once was. *

Speak for yourself, but not for everyone. The afterlife is important, and even you might suddenly discover its importance as you approach your deathbed, as billions of others have.

 

[edwest2]

It is every bit as important as it “once was” but some people want any excuse to deaden the voice of God and to bury the truth. After we die, the judgement. No exceptions.

Remember, life is short, eternity isn’t.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

i don’t see any important distinction between science and rational inquiry. at least i don’t find it important to try to make any distinction. science is a spirit of inquiry in which we try not to fool ourselves about what is true. as a body of knowledge it includes whatever we have good reason to think is true ad excludes whatever we have good reason to think is false.

from the latin root of course “science” just means “knowledge.” it is simply our justified beliefs.

Since science is done by human beings, there is every reason to believe it will be bent for other, not originally intended uses.

hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674047143

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

this isn’t an issue of logical fallacy. it is just a public opinion sort of thing. people aren’t as inclined to seek escape from this world because they don’t see this world as such a bad place. the dream of a blissful after-life has been replaced by the hope that the lives of our children and grandchildren can be better than ours and that our lives on earth can help make the world better.

this of course has nothing to do with whether or not the afterlife is for real. it is just to say that it is not so important to people as it once was.

ascending to heaven also doesn’t make so much scientific sense as it used to. “above us only stars.”

And now we see the promotion of atheistic communism. Thank you, John Lennon.

Talking about the “afterlife” together with science is an oxymoron. Science has no business commenting on what some have personally decided is already false. Here, again, a perfect example of atheism derived from a non-scientific argument. There are zero peer reviewed studies with afterlife in the title.

And there are no scientific papers about “ascending into heaven.”

God bless,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

A poet who discovers a hitherto unknown rhythmic or rhyming device, if he is an expert in writing poetry, will not be reluctant to use it.

Good example. Science cannot tell us if a poem is good or not. Can you imagine how aesthetically blind (or simply inhuman) you’d have to be to want to “scientifically test” various poems to determine if they’re “good for us” or not?

But that’s what we have with materialism. The beauty of poetry is reduced to certain molecular processes that were determined by physical laws.

… and yet, the same science cannot explain why the letters “Cat” should mean a mammal. If we relied on science and materialism, we would not even be able to communicate at a kindergarden level.