Criticism of Modern Science

[reggieM]

Yikes! If you, like me agree with that quote from Benedict then we presumably also agree that science is neither futile nor the only way to gain knowledge. I’ll apologize for not having added that the atheists who claim science is everything lose me in exactly the same way as the theists who claim it is futile.

But I’ve never knowingly wanted to insult anyone here. I said some Christians lose me then quote the Pope and agreed with him! Noting also from my profile that I’m a Christian in Spain where virtually everyone is Catholic, so most of my friends are … wait for it … Catholics.

Thank you. I’m glad it was not intentional and I appreciate your considerate words here.
I’ll add also a couple of points which might help …

1. The OP is looking for reading that argues the point. She has also said that this is not her conclusion (that science if futile).
2. So, nobody here is arguing that science is futile. In fact, nobody on this thread has said or defended that point at all. I’d take it farther and say that I’ve never seen anyone on CAF make such a statement.

If, however, placed in some context – we would say that “it is futile to use science to gain knowledge on matters which are outside of science”.

You might have read the title of the thread alone and concluded that someone was saying that science is a futile enterprise, but that has not been the point.

In fact, if we stayed strictly on topic here, people would offer books that defend that point and there’d be no real discussion. It’s only because some have misunderstood the title of the thread to be a defense of the proposal that we have misunderstood the topic.

 

[Rocinante]

*How do you know science is not at all limited? Can you prove it? *

Don’t ask him to prove it. It’s his religion!

if you look at my profile you’ll see that i’m not religious.

and though you guys seem to think you scored a zinger here, i never said that science is not at all limited. science is just rational inquiry. there is nothing that can be known that we can’t try to know. but that doesn’t mean that all there is to live is trying to know things.

rocinante

 

[Rocinante]

“experiences” is device terminology.

not at all. devices do not experience. only living beings do.

 

[Rocinante]

Rocinante;7193838:

Why do you think science can access the whole of reality? Can it tell us what is good and evil, how we have free will and why we exist? If so please explain how.

the question is not how but whether or not we have free will. what is good and evil is something that science can certainly study. why couldn’t it?

How do you **know **

science is not at all limited? Can you prove it?

there are some questions that we will probably never answer in practice (like how many times all humans in the world blinked in the past 10 minutes–a question that has a specific answer in principle that we can inquire into. and we can now rule out obviously wrong answers to it even if we have no way in practice of answering the question with precision at this time.) note the difference between no answers in practice and no answers in principle. my point is that there is no limit in principle to what we can try to know through rational inquiry.

rocinante

 

[inocente]

In fact, if we stayed strictly on topic here, people would offer books that defend that point and there’d be no real discussion.

In that case one of my favorite theologians is Benedict, along with JPII and Welsey, and I would turn to him first.

He’s talked about this a number of times. Here, he argues against those who would ignore modern science but also against limiting ourselves to empiricism alone, yet his message is positive - “theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith”.

*This attempt, painted with broad strokes, at a critique of modern reason from within has nothing to do with putting the clock back to the time before the Enlightenment and rejecting the insights of the modern age. The positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly: we are all grateful for the marvellous possibilities that it has opened up for mankind and for the progress in humanity that has been granted to us. The scientific ethos, moreover, is - as you yourself mentioned, Magnificent Rector - the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which belongs to the essential decisions of the Christian spirit. The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically falsifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.

Meeting with the representatives of science - Benedict XVI
*

 

[buffalo]

if you look at my profile you’ll see that i’m not religious.

and though you guys seem to think you scored a zinger here, i never said that science is not at all limited. science is just rational inquiry. there is nothing that can be known that we can’t try to know. but that doesn’t mean that all there is to live is trying to know things.

rocinante

Under the broad definition of science (quest for knowledge) all tools are useful.

Modern science limits the tools. That is irrational.

 

[Rocinante]

Under the broad definition of science (quest for knowledge) all tools are useful.

Modern science limits the tools. That is irrational.

i agree. the one poster anselm keeps insisting that science has to be limited to a particular set of tools. that seems irrational to me as well.

what tools do you think some people like anselm are irrationally excluding but are nevertheless useful?

 

[Touchstone]

Under the broad definition of science (quest for knowledge) all tools are useful.

That definition just degrades knowledge. If everything including the kitchen sink gets thrown in, the quality of the output races to the bottom. That’s fine, and appealing enough for many theists, who bristle under the “arrogance” of scientific knowledge and the rigor and performance it brings to the table compared to their theology. If all knowledge is fluff knowledge, then theology ain’t too bad by comparison, then!

The reason science is careful about the tools it uses it because it values knowledge based on empirical performance and falsifiability. These are primary conditions for scientific knowledge and that means that a) the “broad” definition of science is just fluff, and hand-waving in comparison to science-as-practiced, as it has pathetic standards and rigors for performance, if it has any objective basis for judging performance at all, and b) the tools that do get used are always under review for their ability to satisfy the primary conditions of empirical performance and falsifiability.

When everyone is special, no one is. When all tools are useful, “useful” becomes meaningless.

Modern science limits the tools. That is irrational.

This is to totally misunderstand science, how it works and why. It is precisely because reason is brought to bear on the problem of knowledge in a sober, disciplined way that rhetoric like yours here is just shrugged at and laughed by the people who have to produce and demonstrate real knowledge. Your talk is just talk, polemics toward dogma, and with your indiscriminate use of “tools”, you can’t produce jack for knowledge, and can only wave your hands and talk fast in lieu of it.

If I’m wrong, I’m interested to see the real knowledge the tools that have been “irrationally dismissed” show their performance.

-TS

 

[edwest2]

not at all. devices do not experience. only living beings do.

The human device was invented by dead chemicals that self-upgraded and self-upgraded some more. Science can only measure reactions, chemical, neurological and physical, of the device. It remains the self-assembled product of dead matter. It either functions correctly or exhibits anomolous function. Anomolous function can be isolated and identified as to its origin. Experience is simply neurons firing in response to outside stimuli. The memory storage device known as the brain has the capacity to malfunction.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Rocinante]

When everyone is special, no one is. When all tools are useful, “useful” becomes meaningless.

i could by wrong but i took him to be saying not really that all tools are as good as any other but any useful tool is useful and ought to be used. he is suggesting that certain useful tools have been ruled out by science. i think this is true of some scientists like anselm who thinks that only mathematical modeling is rightly called science, but i think that most people think of science in broader terms as in any dictionary definition. it is trying hard not to fool ourselves about what is true. it the total body of knowledge that we have good reason to believe is true.

rocinante

 

[Charlemagne_II]

edwest

The memory storage device known as the brain has the capacity to malfunction.

Not only to malfunction, but to deliberately malfunction.

 

[Anselm33]

i agree. the one poster anselm keeps insisting that science has to be limited to a particular set of tools. that seems irrational to me as well.

what tools do you think some people like anselm are irrationally excluding but are nevertheless useful?

Since my name has been taken in vain, I should justify my authority and position to speak of what science is and is not about. I have 57 years as a practicing physicist, Ph.D. from Harvard, papers, grants, sitting on granting boards. Since my retirement I have been doing much reading in the philosophy of science to hone my opinions: Fr. Stanley Jaki “Limits of a Limitless Science”, Bas van Fraassen “Laws and Symmetry”, Wesley Salmon “Reality and Rationality”, Kuhn “Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, Robert Koons “Realism Regained”, Bernard d’Espagnat “On Physics and Philosophy” and numerous other works on the philosophy of quantum mechanics.

What irritates me/ strike that/ angers me about people with no knowledge of science who are atheists is that they try to use the prestige of science to reinforce their claims that atheism is correct. They do not distinguish between rational enterprises, such as philosophy, theology or history, which use different standards of evidence than does science and science, which requires quantitative, third person objective evidence and replication of measurement. The idea being that quantitative measurement is objective, does not rely on subjective judgments, and therefore is a reliable confirmation of a theory
(given statistical interpretations for error).

I should add that I do not mean to denigrate the value of non-scientific enterprises. I am married to a Medieval historian (who probably knows more about the Albigensians than any one else in the world, and my children are engaged in intellectual enterprises that are not science, and doing a good thing for the world. Indeed, if one were forced to choose between Bach and Newton, I think I’d choose Bach.

However I do object to those who know nothing of science attempting to use science to bolster their case for atheism. Rocinante in particular makes false-to-fact claims such as people are not praying in cases where medical aid is available for a sickness. My own experience as a Eucharistic Minister at the local hospital and noting the prayers at Adoration Chapel is quite different. His objective seems to me to be, as an evangelical atheist, to demean the rationality of those of us who believe by claiming scientific support for his views, and thus to demean our faith.

There are atheists on this site with whom I have had enlightening discussions. They respect my beliefs and I respect theirs.

 

[reggieM]

:thumbsup:You’ve said something I’ll try to remember.

Thanks. I should say also that I’m just trying out that theory and I hope it works.

 

[edwest2]

Since my name has been taken in vain, I should justify my authority and position to speak of what science is and is not about. I have 57 years as a practicing physicist, Ph.D. from Harvard, papers, grants, sitting on granting boards. Since my retirement I have been doing much reading in the philosophy of science to hone my opinions: Fr. Stanley Jaki “Limits of a Limitless Science”, Bas van Fraassen “Laws and Symmetry”, Wesley Salmon “Reality and Rationality”, Kuhn “Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, Robert Koons “Realism Regained”, Bernard d’Espagnat “On Physics and Philosophy” and numerous other works on the philosophy of quantum mechanics.

What irritates me/ strike that/ angers me about people with no knowledge of science who are atheists is that they try to use the prestige of science to reinforce their claims that atheism is correct. They do not distinguish between rational enterprises, such as philosophy, theology or history, which use different standards of evidence than does science and science, which requires quantitative, third person objective evidence and replication of measurement. The idea being that quantitative measurement is objective, does not rely on subjective judgments, and therefore is a reliable confirmation of a theory
(given statistical interpretations for error).

I should add that I do not mean to denigrate the value of non-scientific enterprises. I am married to a Medieval historian (who probably knows more about the Albigensians than any one else in the world, and my children are engaged in intellectual enterprises that are not science, and doing a good thing for the world. Indeed, if one were forced to choose between Bach and Newton, I think I’d choose Bach.

However I do object to those who know nothing of science attempting to use science to bolster their case for atheism. Rocinante in particular makes false-to-fact claims such as people are not praying in cases where medical aid is available for a sickness. My own experience as a Eucharistic Minister at the local hospital and noting the prayers at Adoration Chapel is quite different. His objective seems to me to be, as an evangelical atheist, to demean the rationality of those of us who believe by claiming scientific support for his views, and thus to demean our faith.

There are atheists on this site with whom I have had enlightening discussions. They respect my beliefs and I respect theirs.

Thank you for mentioning your credentials. As someone who works in the media and monitors it almost daily, I am concerned about certain trends. I suggest you pick up a good book about propaganda and propaganda techniques. I strongly recommend Masters of Deception by J.Edgar Hoover. I also recommend you have a look at the work of B.F. Skinner:

webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/skinner.html

Today, the scientific community is buried under philosophical assumptions that it insists are true. The way these assumptions are presented have nothing to do with science and everything to do with promoting an agenda. On this forum, there a number of posters who are involved in what is called “engineering consent.” The technique being used is social conditioning which the media supports. The main thrust of this attempt is to convert the world to pure utilitarian functionalism, and to deny god/gods, beliefs and superstitions. This program was also the goal of Marxism. The State would produce propaganda to dull and discredit the ‘stories’ told to children by parents and grandparents (the latter being viewed as a greater threat) about religion and God.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Rocinante]

Since my name has been taken in vain, I should justify my authority and position to speak of what science is and is not about. I have 57 years as a practicing physicist, Ph.D. from Harvard, papers, grants, sitting on granting boards. Since my retirement I have been doing much reading in the philosophy of science to hone my opinions: Fr. Stanley Jaki “Limits of a Limitless Science”, Bas van Fraassen “Laws and Symmetry”, Wesley Salmon “Reality and Rationality”, Kuhn “Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, Robert Koons “Realism Regained”, Bernard d’Espagnat “On Physics and Philosophy” and numerous other works on the philosophy of quantum mechanics.

being a scientist does not qualify one as a philosopher of science. and nothing even could qualify you to enforce a specific definition of what can count as science. for some reason you have a desire to rule out biologists, psychologists, neurologists, sociologists, historians, and all other non-physicists from science. there is no doubt that all these disciplines are not the same thing as physics. that’s why we have the word “physics” to distinguish a particular branch of science.

the good folks at merriam-webster have this to say about science:
1
: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2
a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3
a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4
: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws
5
capitalized : christian science

in spite of your efforts to enforce the use of the word science to mean mathematical modeling only, that is just not how the word is used in the english language.

What irritates me/ strike that/ angers me about people with no knowledge of science who are atheists is that they try to use the prestige of science to reinforce their claims that atheism is correct.

gave you give any examples here? i haven’t heard anyone try to argue that atheism is correct. the only ones that seem to me to be interested in atheism around here are christians.

They do not distinguish between rational enterprises, such as philosophy, theology or history, which use different standards of evidence than does science and science, which requires quantitative, third person objective evidence and replication of measurement.

right. i don’t find it important to distinguish between subjects as different ways of knowing. either we have good reason to believe something or we do not.

the only important distinction there is to make in terms of science/not science is that science is a public project. it is about trying to get consensus on what we have good reason to believe. this is where your “objective” “third person” blah, blah, blah often comes in (but not always as we’ll see later). scientific inquiry always includes not only determining what is and is not true but also finding ways to get agreement on what is true.

your mistake is trying to determine in advance what sorts of ways one is permitted to use to try to get agreement. there is no reason to rule out ways of trying to get agreement (and limit them only to quantifying) before we even hear about what they are.

for example, i see nothing whatsoever that is unscientific about the practice of meditation. people routinely report experiencing states of consciousness that they can bring about through directing their attention in certain ways. many of such people are able to train others to have the same sorts of experiences. the effects are reproducible in others who undergo such training. “third person” evidence is no requirement to get agreement on the efficacy of such uses of attention.

another example might be testing an exercise or medication for reducing back pain. the pain does not need to be “third person” measurable to speak scientifically about the efficacy of such a treatment. scientists routinely use subjective reports of the effects of such treatments to make objective claims about the efficacy of such treatments. and i assume you won’t want to discount medicine and physical therapy as not being scientific.

rocinante

 

[Rocinante]

However I do object to those who know nothing of science attempting to use science to bolster their case for atheism. Rocinante in particular makes false-to-fact claims such as people are not praying in cases where medical aid is available for a sickness. My own experience as a Eucharistic Minister at the local hospital and noting the prayers at Adoration Chapel is quite different.

i just assumed that, for example, if someone had a deep contusion, one wouldn’t pray for it to miraculously close but would instead go to a hospital to get stitches, and if someone, say, had his arm amputated after an injury wouldn’t bother to pray for it to grow back but would instead get himself fitted with a good prosthetic, but i could be wrong. am i really? maybe people do pray for such things. are you aware of anyone praying for such things? i know a lot of christians, but idon’t know anyone who would.

rocinante

 

[edwest2]

Science does not set public policy in the United States. We all know hundreds of lobbyists do that. The auto industry opposes cars getting 60 miles per gallon. Why? It can be done but that means gasoline sales will go down. At one time, General Motors was part owner of Standard Oil.

As long as science is done by human beings it is subject to corruption, and misuse.

God bless,
Ed

 

[tonyrey]

Why do you think science can access the whole of reality? Can it tell us what is good and evil, how we have free will and why we exist? If so please explain how.

Without free will we wouldn’t be responsible for any of our thoughts or actions.

what is good and evil is something that science can certainly study. why couldn’t it?

There is a difference between “is” and “ought”. Science is concerned with what occurs, not with whether it should occur.

How do you know science is not at all limited? Can you prove it?

there are some questions that we will probably never answer in practice (like how many times all humans in the world blinked in the past 10 minutes–a question that has a specific answer in principle that we can inquire into. and we can now rule out obviously wrong answers to it even if we have no way in practice of answering the question with precision at this time.) note the difference between no answers in practice and no answers in principle. my point is that there i

s no limit in principle to what we can try to know through rational inquiry.

I agree but that is different from what we can succeed in knowing! And scientific inquiry is not the only form of rational inquiry…

 

[Anselm33]

being a scientist does not qualify one as a philosopher of science. and nothing even could qualify you to enforce a specific definition of what can count as science. for some reason you have a desire to rule out biologists, psychologists, neurologists, sociologists, historians, and all other non-physicists from science. there is no doubt that all these disciplines are not the same thing as physics. that’s why we have the word “physics” to distinguish a particular branch of scienc

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Rocinante

*the good folks at merriam-webster have this to say about science:
1
: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2
a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3
a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4
: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws
5
capitalized : christian science *

If this is your best source for defining science, you are certainly not well read on the subject.