Is science scientific?!

[Filthy_Tugboat]

I didn’t. You do regard some goals as objective?

Only objective when considered subjectively.

If they correspond to reality they are objective.

Then that makes many goals objective and contradicting, for example; the evolution and reproduction of carnivores, positive for the individual species, negative for those that get munched on. So should we then conclude that everything is both positive and negative intrinsically or should we admit that goals are subjective.

Feel free to present a goal that is objective and tell me why it is so. I have presented many subjective goals as examples to my point.

So some goals are objective.

No because it requires a subjective perspective to create a goal.

Precisely! The mind exists first!

How many times have we used the term, “manifestation of the brain,” and you don’t recognize what is meant by it? It means that the “mind” is a philosophical concept that generally related to a person and their character while the brain is the biological organ that controls the body, the brain being the physical manifestation is the mind is saying that they are synonymous, the brain is the mind and the mind is the brain. If anything the brain is more powerful because the term “mind” does not relate to reflexes or instincts or body function control, only the character and personality.

In that case when you don’t have an objective we’re entitled to polish you off!

What do you mean by this statement?

You are relating subjectivity to goals and not a mental state?

Goals are subjective. If you disagree, feel free to present an objective goal.

So you regard animals as morally responsible?

Yes, however I am not completely aware of the moral responsibilities within the many different species but they are certainly responsible for their actions and many groups of animals recognize this.

The goal is remaining alive. It is both subjective **and **objective.

How is it objective? It is dependent on life is it not? Without life the goal for remaining alive is non-existent. I would suggest that is subjective as it requires a perspective in order to be true.

So it is a non-human goal.

Is life a non-human goal? I don’t really follow? How is life a goal? I’m sure it entails many goals but how is life in itself a goal?

That points to science of the gaps!

Are you suggesting goals don’t exist?

So you don’t think a person or truth or justice is positive?

Not intrinsically, no.

There is no evidence that natural objects can explain themselves.

What do you mean by, “explain themselves” in this context?

Because it means “Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle”.

That doesn’t necessarily make it absurd though.

It cannot be observed by the senses.

That all depends on what you mean by "the self."I certainly can use my senses to uncover much of “the self.” The way someone talks, dresses, what perfume/cologne they use, \what they talk about, etc…

Then a vacuum is a gap in your knowledge! It is doubly negative.

My knowledge is irrelevant to what a vacuum is or is not.

Limited by being unable to have **abstract **knowledge.

If the brain and the mind are synonymous then this statement is false.

If it isn’t its powers are limited to observable events - which is untrue.

Why would the minds powers be limited to observable events if it is synonymous with the brain?

So philosophy is more fundamental than biology?

No, philosophy is fundamental to biology in the sense that the axioms in biology are philosophical.

Such as?

I have already presented evidence, all studies so far link conscious activity with brain function. If you feel that the conscious mind is a separate entity from the brain, feel free to present evidence supporting your position.

Electrical currents don’t know anything.

Indeed but the brain is not “electrical currents”, the brain is a grouping of cells capable of knowledge retention and much much more. It uses electrical currents.

Which needs to be interpreted correctly.

Yes but there is so far no reason to assume we are capable of that. We just assume it because if we don’t, what else do we have?

Then the purpose is not rational.

Indeed but that doesn’t make it irrational and it certainly is not purposeless as you originally proposed.

We can think of the past and future and eternity.

Indeed but our thought capabilities are not necessarily a true representation of the past, future or eternity. So what we are capable of thinking of indeed has nothing to do with the past, future or eternity.

It can think of the past and future and eternity.

How does that make it a separate entity from the brain? You seem to be drawing random conclusions that are based on the assumption that the mind and the brain are already separate entities, do you have any reason or evidence to continue with this assumption? Could you present them?

Forgive me for asking in this plethora of posts what it is! (That’s the first time in my long life I’ve ever used that word.

Is it possible for non-existence to be a reality?

 

[Curious_Seed]

It seems obvious that science cannot justify or explain itself. Do you agree or disagree?

Is science scientific?

Well, I certainly like the audacity of the question; but, really, my oh my.

Such an exploration needs clarification of the author’s definitions of science and scientific, but it’s too good to pass by . . .

Now, to add to the stew, is it obvious science cannot explain or justify itself?

So, even if true, is it obvious?

And . . . science cannot explain itself; science cannot justify itself.

Ok, really too much ambiguity, in too many concepts, but too much fun to pass up . . .

Science is a perspective.

The perspective results in an opinion.

That’s it; that’s all.

So, science does not seek to explain or justify itself, since its nature is no more than a point of view – a point of view that yields an opinion of its view.

What is greatly misleading about the word science is the ubiquitous use of the moniker scientific.

Subjects in sociology and psychology and economics on and on claim science, as their backbone, a la physics and chemistry – when, in fact, they are at best pseudo-scientific in method, yielding pseudo-scientific findings, of course.

The constraints on the scientific perspective are stringent: testable and identically repeatable.

Science [noun] is scientific [adjective] and science does not seek to explain or justify itself, but rather explain what it observes, with justification being unnecessary, of its findings.

 

[tonyrey]

Is science scientific?

Well, I certainly like the audacity of the question; but, really, my oh my.

Such an exploration needs clarification of the author’s definitions of science and scientific, but it’s too good to pass by . . .

Now, to add to the stew, is it obvious science cannot explain or justify itself?

So, even if true, is it obvious?

And . . . science cannot explain itself; science cannot justify itself.

Ok, really too much ambiguity, in too many concepts, but too much fun to pass up . . .

Science is a perspective.

The perspective results in an opinion.

That’s it; that’s all.

So, science does not seek to explain or justify itself, since its nature is no more than a point of view – a point of view that yields an opinion of its view.

What is greatly misleading about the word science is the ubiquitous use of the moniker scientific.

Subjects in sociology and psychology and economics on and on claim science, as their backbone, a la physics and chemistry – when, in fact, they are at best pseudo-scientific in method, yielding pseudo-scientific findings, of course.

The constraints on the scientific perspective are stringent: testable and identically repeatable.

Science [noun] is scientific [adjective] and science does not seek to explain or justify itself, but rather explain what it observes, with justification being unnecessary, of its findings.

Aren’t tests, results and explanations forms of justification?

 

[Curious_Seed]

Aren’t tests, results and explanations forms of justification?

Prior to science, philosophy was king.

With philosophy came opinions that were not necessarily evident to anyone but the philosopher.

Claims of truth begged the question, how can you demonstrate it?

Prior to the scientific method, evidence of any claim of truth was demonstrated only anecdotally.

That satisfied the sycophants of the philosopher, but only them.

Science developed a method of investigation [perspective] that yielded a result [opinion] that anyone could reproduce.

This extinguished the anecdotal claims of truth and birthed objective claims of truth.

Is science justified in using its “ methods ” or tests, and in turn, having its “ results ” or explanations?

Justification is a philosophical concept, not amenable to scientific endeavour.

In other words, it is up to the philosopher to determine justification, not the scientist, since justification is not subject to tests that are repeatable, with identical results, from each repetition, as science demands.

Science does not ask is there a God. Yet, some theologians attempt to make scientific their analysis – claiming scientific reasoning.

Science does not ask are you insane. Yet, some psychologists attempt to make scientific their analysis – claiming scientific reasoning.

Science can determine if you are present, but not who you are.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Curious

Prior to science, philosophy was king.

Philosophy still is king. The pursuit of wisdom overrides the pursuit of natural laws. Ask any scientist which he would admire more: the invention of atomic weapons, or the wisdom never to have invented them in the first place.

With philosophy came opinions that were not necessarily evident to anyone but the philosopher.

They could be evident to everybody if logic was used.

Claims of truth begged the question, how can you demonstrate it?

By the fruits of the philosophy, usually.

Prior to the scientific method, evidence of any claim of truth was demonstrated only anecdotally.

By logic too.

Science developed a method of investigation [perspective] that yielded a result [opinion] that anyone could reproduce.

No, emphatically not. Science did not produce its method of investigation. That would like saying it produced itself. Philosophers produced the scientific method. Ever heard of the philosophy of science?

Francis Bacon was the philosopher par excellence of science. Without the philosophers tackling the problem of logic, i.e. induction versus deduction, science would never have got a full head of steam. Aristotle was one of the the first to point this out.

Roger Bacon in the Middle Ages revived Aristotle’s interest in science. And the philosopher/statesman Francis Bacon (a contemporary of Shakespeare) solidified the principles for the English speaking world in his Novum Organum.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

You don’t get the point. Ever heard of metascience?

I think you’re talking about the underpinnings of science, but science needs no underpinnings just as logic doesn’t. Why should they? They both serve functional purposes and do so quite well.

 

[Curious_Seed]

Curious

Prior to science, philosophy was king.

Philosophy still is king. The pursuit of wisdom overrides the pursuit of natural laws. Ask any scientist which he would admire more: the invention of atomic weapons, or the wisdom never to have invented them in the first place.

With philosophy came opinions that were not necessarily evident to anyone but the philosopher.

They could be evident to everybody if logic was used.

Claims of truth begged the question, how can you demonstrate it?

By the fruits of the philosophy, usually.

Prior to the scientific method, evidence of any claim of truth was demonstrated only anecdotally.

By logic too.

Science developed a method of investigation [perspective] that yielded a result [opinion] that anyone could reproduce.

No, emphatically not. Science did not produce its method of investigation. That would like saying it produced itself. Philosophers produced the scientific method. Ever heard of the philosophy of science?

Francis Bacon was the philosopher par excellence of science. Without the philosophers tackling the problem of logic, i.e. induction versus deduction, science would never have got a full head of steam. Aristotle was one of the the first to point this out.

Roger Bacon in the Middle Ages revived Aristotle’s interest in science. And the philosopher/statesman Francis Bacon (a contemporary of Shakespeare) solidified the principles for the English speaking world in his Novum Organum.

Philosophy is still king?
University curricula and social settings, for the most part, no longer reflect that.

The pursuit of wisdom overrides the pursuit of natural laws is quite philosophical of you.

The opinion of a scientist on non-scientific inquiry is of no leveraged value, though again you demonstrate statements which are anecdotally [your own] premised.

Logic is amazing – quite right.

But, the premises are not necessarily so.
And logic based on false premises does not lead to conclusions of truth.

Your partial recount of the historical development of scientific methodology is sound, though not contradictory to what I have stated.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Curious

Philosophy is still king?
University curricula and social settings, for the most part, no longer reflect that.

That is not the fault of philosophy, but of the lack of those who still believe in philosophy.

People still believe wisdom is more regal than science, even if university dons don’t.

 

[tonyrey]

I think you’re talking about the underpinnings of science, but science needs no underpinnings just as logic doesn’t. Why should they? They both serve functional purposes and do so quite well.

I have never come across a philosopher or scientist who believes science needs no underpinnings. Can you cite one?

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I have never come across a philosopher or scientist who believes science needs no underpinnings. Can you cite one?

Not off the top of my head, no. Of course, I’m not sure: 1) why you would have to point that out, 2) why it matters what any particular philosopher says (argument from authority)

Does the scientific method work? Yes.

Does logic work? Yes.

Do we need to justify them? Well, if that’s what you claim then tell me why.

 

[tonyrey]

Not off the top of my head, no. Of course, I’m not sure: 1) why you would have to point that out, 2) why it matters what any particular philosopher says (argument from authority)

Does the scientific method work? Yes.

Does logic work? Yes.

Do we need to justify them? Well, if that’s what you claim then tell me why.

Not to justify them is both unscientific and unreasonable. It is equivalent to abandoning the search for explanations.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Not to justify them is both unscientific and unreasonable. It is equivalent to abandoning the search for explanations.

I don’t see why.

Logic is axiomatic. You must assume it to be correct in order to do virtually anything, including have this conversation.

The scientific method is a tool. It is a tool that works. Why would it require justification?
Or are you disputing that the scientific method works?

 

[tonyrey]

The scientific method is a tool. It is a tool that works. Why would it require justification?

Scientific methods are not always successful and **all scientific conclusions are provisional. If the methods **used by scientists are not examined they cannot be improved. That is where metascience comes in…

BTW Tests, results and explanations are forms of justification.

 

[Mike_Dante]

Welcome to the forum! I agree with you but atheists like Dawkins claim science has made religion superfluous with its explanation of the origin of life and human beings.

Two comments:

First, I would suggest a slight modification of your statement. “… Dawkins claims … religion superfluous if its explanation , beings were what Dawkins understands it to be.”

Secondly, it seems to me that if religion is only, or even primarily, about the origin of life and human beings then it is indeed superfluous because it would be of very minor importance. The really important questions are those like, “Does my life have any meaning?”, “Is there any way I ought to live?”, and “How should I relate to others?”. Science has** no** answers, though perhaps some important evidence to contribute, to these types of important questions. (I speak as a scientist. You can tell because I didn’t run a red pencil through the repetitions of the word “important”.)