Is science scientific?!

[DianaCC]

Beliefs are not subjected to choice, they are the result of experience.

Ironically that’s my point. Often when I come across someone who disbelives in Christianity, he is also living a lifestyle that violates the 6th commandment. It doesn’t take a genius to see the bigger picture.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Ironically that’s my point. Often when I come across someone who disbelives in Christianity, he is also living a lifestyle that violates the 6th commandment. It doesn’t take a genius to see the bigger picture.

I was under the impression that you were implying someone doesn’t believe because it is morally inconvenient? Would this not necessitate choice in belief? My point was that Our opinions of it’s convenience are irrelevant to it’s truth or it’s evidence and subsequently to our belief in it.

 

[honestquestions]

Your answer amounts to blind faith in the power of science to explain everything simply because it has explained many things!

All faith is blind - that’s the definition of faith. You either believe something based on evidence or you do not. Science accounts for evidence, does it not? Science is the only way that we know something. Give an example of something we know that is not scientific…

 

[lemondiesel]

That doesn’t make it scientific. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, philosophy is not science.

What? The most fundamental principle of science, the scientific method, is derived from philosophy. You cant have one without the other.

 

[AF_Fugue]

Originally Posted by AF_Fugue
2) On the rare occassion that they intersect, there can be no conflict because both Faith and Reason are both gifts from God. (If they appear to conflict, then someone is wrong.)

To be honest, I’m not sure how to answer your first question. However, I’m not sure it matters in this context. Most, if not all Christians, believe that Faith and Reason are a gift from God. Given that assumption, I pointed out that there can be no conflict. I also did not mean to suggest that religion is automatically correct, although it may be more precise to say that Theology and empirical science can never be in conflict unless one of them is wrong. The classical example is the 6,000-year-old Earth vs. the billions-year-old year. Obviously they can’t both be correct, and in this case I’m going with empirical science. As for whether or not my statement applies to all religions, I must admit that I am not qualified to speak for anyone’s religion but my own.

I hope I addressed the core of your questions, and if not, maybe someone else here can lend his or her wisdom.

 

[tonyrey]

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

It fails to explain the regularity in the universe whether or not randomness is the fundamental pillar of science.

 

[tonyrey]

The difference being that metaphysics encompasses science.Metaphysics can be scientific How?

In**** the sense that it includes scientific truths.

That doesn’t make it scientific. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, philosophy is not science.

**** Philosophy is not science but when it is supported by science it contains testable explanations and predictions which are the hallmark of science. The Design argument, for example, predicts that the order in the universe will continue to exist.

---

 

[tonyrey]

All faith is blind - that’s the definition of faith. You either believe something based on evidence or you do not. Science accounts for evidence, does it not? Science is the only way that we know something. Give an example of something we know that is not scientific…

1. All our knowledge is based on the evidence of our interior experiences.
2. **Our primary data **are our thoughts, feelings, decisions and perceptions.
3. We infer the existence of material things from the evidence of our perceptions.
4. Science presupposes our power of reason which is intangible and unobservable by the senses.
5. The belief that science is the only way that we know something is obviously false.
6. Scientific knowledge is based on our direct, immediate knowledge of ourselves.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

**** Philosophy is not science but when it is supported by science it contains testable explanations and predictions which are the hallmark of science. The Design argument, for example, predicts that the order in the universe will continue to exist.

---

Yes but the design argument is unfalsifiable which immediately makes it ‘not science’.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

It fails to explain the regularity in the universe whether or not randomness is the fundamental pillar of science.

Does it even try to explain the regularity in the universe? I haven’t seen any theories trying to explain that, in fact I’m confident that this very thing is one of sciences key axioms.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

What? The most fundamental principle of science, the scientific method, is derived from philosophy. You cant have one without the other.

How is the scientific method derived from philosophy? Permitting this assumption, how does that make philosophy a science?

The reason philosophy is generally not considered a science is because science requires observations, hypotheses, testing and predictions. Which areas of study in philosophy produce this?

 

[DianaCC]

I was under the impression that you were implying someone doesn’t believe because it is morally inconvenient? Would this not necessitate choice in belief? My point was that Our opinions of it’s convenience are irrelevant to it’s truth or it’s evidence and subsequently to our belief in it.

I’m having a lot of trouble following you. I say that many people want to violate the 6th commandment with their girlfriends and boyfriends. This lifestyle goes against Christianity. They know you can’t live both. So they disbelieve Christianity. But they are too embarrassed to say the real reason, so they excuse themselves by saying that science has disproven God, or that priests molest children, or that the Church has too much gold, that sort of thing.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

To be honest, I’m not sure how to answer your first question. However, I’m not sure it matters in this context. Most, if not all Christians, believe that Faith and Reason are a gift from God. Given that assumption, I pointed out that there can be no conflict.

Yes, I realise that you pointed it out, I was wondering how you reached our conclusion though.

I also did not mean to suggest that religion is automatically correct, although it may be more precise to say that Theology and empirical science can never be in conflict unless one of them is wrong.

Not entirely correct, they could both be wrong.

The classical example is the 6,000-year-old Earth vs. the billions-year-old year. Obviously they can’t both be correct, and in this case I’m going with empirical science.

I can certainly understand why.

As for whether or not my statement applies to all religions, I must admit that I am not qualified to speak for anyone’s religion but my own.

I originally meant this statement for opposing religious claims however I now realise I did not make that very clear and I do apologise. Basically the point I failed to make was, if two religious claims are conflicting (hell two religious claims and a scientific one if we want to go a little crazy with it ) and both believe that faith and reason are a gift from God and they believe that faith and reason are on their respective sides, is the conflict resolved or do we now just have a stalemate of each side believing they are correct but due to the unfalsifiable nature of God and religion, nobody can really show that they’re right.

 

[reggieM]

How is the scientific method derived from philosophy?

Philosophical truths necessarily must preceed (have priority or come before) the rules of science. In fact, the act of creating rules (for categorization, testing, evaluation, validations, meaning, purpose, consistency of interpretation, falsification, etc. etc.) all must exist before there can be any empirical science.

The scientific method is a collection of rules that scientists follow. Science cannot create itself – nor can mathematics create itself. Philosophy creates the rules which are based on reason, logic – and what we call “meaning” or “purpose”.

Metaphysics is the study of the higher laws of being and reason. Science is dependent on philosophy - necessarily. The rules of logic are developed by philosophy – not through scientific experiments in test tubes or biology labs.

The rules of logic and mathematics are not traced to any molecular activity (thus, materialism is refuted on that point alone).

Permitting this assumption, how does that make philosophy a science?

I can’t see how that question is going to help you much since it doesn’t follow from anything that has been said so far. Empirical science is derived from philosophy. Science cannot exist without philosophy.

In simpler terms, you are not arguing with anyone here using science at all – you’re using philosophical terms.

The reason philosophy is generally not considered a science is because science requires observations, hypotheses, testing and predictions.

Those are all philosophical constructs. Science cannot explain what a hypothesis is. Science can only deal with material reality. If a hypothesis can be found in a collection of molecules somewhere – and then measured and analyzed, then it would be something scientific.

Instead, however, a hypothesis is a philosophical construct. It follows rules created by philosophy, not science.

Which areas of study in philosophy produce this?

Again, the challenge is for you – which scientific papers show the origin and physical composition of a thing called a “hypothesis”?

Science is completely powerless to even explain its own rules and findings – it must rely on philosophy.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

How is the scientific method derived from philosophy? Permitting this assumption, how does that make philosophy a science?

Science is a branching of natural philosophy. The introduction of the scientific method during the 17th century started the branching. The term “science” was used to make it more distinguishable, which occurred during the 18th century. In effect, science is a subset of philosophy.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

I’m having a lot of trouble following you. I say that many people want to violate the 6th commandment with their girlfriends and boyfriends. This lifestyle goes against Christianity. They know you can’t live both. So they disbelieve Christianity. But they are too embarrassed to say the real reason, so they excuse themselves by saying that science has disproven God, or that priests molest children, or that the Church has too much gold, that sort of thing.

I was under the impression that the 6th commandment was along the lines of ‘murder’, perhaps you mean the 7th commandment. That really depends on how you define adultery, I personally consider adultery to be sexual relationships outside of a committed monogamous relationship.

The first reason is false and the other two reasons are not concerned with the truth of the religion but rather with the actions of it’s followers. People who use these excuses are not necessarily interested in whether it is true.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Philosophical truths necessarily must preceed (have priority or come before) the rules of science. In fact, the act of creating rules (for categorization, testing, evaluation, validations, meaning, purpose, consistency of interpretation, falsification, etc. etc.) all must exist before there can be any empirical science.

The scientific method is a collection of rules that scientists follow. Science cannot create itself – nor can mathematics create itself. Philosophy creates the rules which are based on reason, logic – and what we call “meaning” or “purpose”.

Metaphysics is the study of the higher laws of being and reason. Science is dependent on philosophy - necessarily. The rules of logic are developed by philosophy – not through scientific experiments in test tubes or biology labs.

OK, thank you for clearing that up, I agree.

The rules of logic and mathematics are not traced to any molecular activity (thus, materialism is refuted on that point alone).

Not necessarily as logic and math are constructs that exist only with consciousness which may very well be a product of matter.

I can’t see how that question is going to help you much since it doesn’t follow from anything that has been said so far. Empirical science is derived from philosophy. Science cannot exist without philosophy.

In simpler terms, you are not arguing with anyone here using science at all – you’re using philosophical terms.

Well actually, somebody claimed that metaphysics is a science, when it is not, it is a bran ch of philosophy, I then followed that philosophy is not science so now my question stands, if science was born out of philosophical axioms and guidelines, does that make philosophy science or does it simply make science a subset or a branch of philosophy?

The relation between philosophy and science you showed above suggests that this relationship may not be two way, if science is a subset of philosophy that doesn’t necessarily mean that philosophy as a whole is science.

Those are all philosophical constructs. Science cannot explain what a hypothesis is. Science can only deal with material reality. If a hypothesis can be found in a collection of molecules somewhere – and then measured and analyzed, then it would be something scientific.

Instead, however, a hypothesis is a philosophical construct. It follows rules created by philosophy, not science.

Agreed.

Again, the challenge is for you – which scientific papers show the origin and physical composition of a thing called a “hypothesis”?

I don’t recall claiming that such things exist, and I have since retracted my former objections to the science being an extension of philosophy point.

Science is completely powerless to even explain its own rules and findings – it must rely on philosophy.

Indeed, now is philosophy science or is science just a branch of philosophy?

 

[reggieM]

I have since retracted my former objections to the science being an extension of philosophy point.

That is an admirable thing to see – thanks for truly engaging in the discussion rather than just arguing for the sake of it (which sadly, I’ve seen too many people do).

Indeed, now is philosophy science or is science just a branch of philosophy?

This is debatable, I think. The arguments favoring philosophy as science are using older terminology (actually, the ancient definitions from Aristotle’s time). That would even call theology a science.

The ordinary, modern terminology would consider science to be just physical science.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

That is an admirable thing to see – thanks for truly engaging in the discussion rather than just arguing for the sake of it (which sadly, I’ve seen too many people do).

This is debatable, I think. The arguments favoring philosophy as science are using older terminology (actually, the ancient definitions from Aristotle’s time). That would even call theology a science.

The ordinary, modern terminology would consider science to be just physical science.

That was the way I felt, science may be built off of philosophical axioms but I don’t see any reason why philosophy would be considered science using modern day terminology.

 

[meltzerboy]

That is an admirable thing to see – thanks for truly engaging in the discussion rather than just arguing for the sake of it (which sadly, I’ve seen too many people do).

This is debatable, I think. The arguments favoring philosophy as science are using older terminology (actually, the ancient definitions from Aristotle’s time). That would even call theology a science.

The ordinary, modern terminology would consider science to be just physical science.

Not exactly. Science consists not only of physical science (physics, chemistry) but also natural–and earth–science (biology, geology), social science (psychology, sociology, anthropology, history), and political science, including economics.