Isn't modern science overrated?

[Just_Lurking]

What is so great about modern science?

Science has empirical validation as its basis. In other words, the results of science can be checked. Because of this, it tends to converge towards the truth over time.

Other disciplines lack this, and just move from one fad to the next, even when their progress is viewed over centuries or millennia.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

No, they present their theories as facts, regardless that they are not logical.

As a scientist myself, I take offense to this position of yours.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’ve never really understood why average people are so enthralled with “science” that they have to build whole world-views out of it.

What is so great about modern science?

There’s been some rather useful life-altering impacts that have come from the information and activities attributed to “science.” Coming from a different background myself (Computer Science, which is more of an area of math than an area of science) I’ve also found it’s easy to impress people when they don’t understand something. Use some relatively simple math procedure to quickly get an answer to a question or get an automaton to do something that makes one smile and they are generally impressed. Though those that understand how it works are generally less impressed (note: this is just my experience).

 

[grannymh]

As someone who both likes Aristotle and attended science classes, I’ve never really understood why average people are so enthralled with “science” that they have to build whole world-views out of it.

What is so great about modern science?

There is a difference between scientific research and the interpretation of scientific research especially when the material world collides with the spiritual world. This war of the worlds ends up throwing out the scientific (induction) method.

Therefore, in my humble observation, natural science can be great and not so great, overrated and not overrated.

 

[Cristiano]

As a scientist myself, I take offense to this position of yours.

You being a scientist is just your theory and not a fact thus your comment is not logical at all.

 

[TheAtheist]

Well, i do have to say, as a scientist also i’m a little shocked by the comment.

That there should be collective anxiety/disdain over the concept of atheism is at the very least understandable given the disposition of the people on this forum.

But science? Really guys and gals?

It is comforting to see some Catholics who are either within the profession or are literate in the subject matters (and yes that’s a nod to granny) that pertain to the field throw in their "caveat"comments to the OP, but still it does raise some concerns…

 

[fakename]

As you’re defining it, the most scientific science perhaps starts out that way, but its utility generally grows over time. Think about chemistry - we probably knew about the existence of atoms and elements and the difference between them all for years without having practical applications for it. While this was going on, our understanding of human biology was also growing, to the extent that we realized our bodies are made up of precisely the same elements that we find elsewhere in the world. There’s iron in the rocks. There’s iron in our blood. How is this relevant to anything? Nobody knew for awhile. But eventually, our understanding of elements in chemistry and our understanding of human biology allowed the field of bio-chemistry to develop. Today, what we learn about chemistry can easily be considered in the context of human biology, and vice versa.

But consider something - as our understandings of chemistry and biology advanced to the point where we could use knowledge in one field to apply in another, was that making things “less scientific?” What, precisely, is “less scientific” about accumulating knowledge in various disciplines to the point where we can actually apply it to solving real world problems (like in medicine, for example)? Doesn’t this argument seem backwards to you?

There are plenty of scientific disciplines (theoretical physics, for example), that regularly produce theories that, even if true, seem a bit starved for real-world applications. But I don’t know anybody who actually organizes their life around the assumption that, say, the Multi-verse is true. I don’t even know how one would do that, even if they wanted to.

I don’t have a problem with utility but I do have a problem with utility calling itself science. The reason I feel this way, is that I consider science to be about the production of knowledge through a true syllogism which is commensurate with the object studied in both the nature of the object, and its meaning (as such it does require prior and indemonstrable truths to work). Hence a science that considers a timelessly true proposition like "For every utterance one may add another connected by the article “or”. " is more scientific than the one which considers a contingent fact like “65 million years ago the dinosaurs were destroyed”. But the relation between logic and archeology is much the same as that between IMO, metaphysics and natural science. Whereas one tries to make his statements falsifiable the other tries to avoid it altogether. Whereas one has operational meaning and thus practicality, the other has no real good except its own consistency.

Often times too, modern science finds out merely “that” something is happening and not “why”. This is another deficiency which makes what we call science, an uncertain thing. That germs cause disease can be established, but what germs are we didn’t know for a while. That space-time can be warped is established but what space-time is,to my knowledge, we also don’t know. In this way, much of science may very well be equivocal. Therefore if people ask “why does gravity exist?” a scientist might say “because space-time is affected by mass” however that’s not saying what the cause of gravity is, except perhaps to confuse the idea of mass and space-time. One could definitely wonder how matter has anything to do with the meaning of space-time or how one is not acting like a poet by calling space-time “a sheet” or “lattice-work” and massive objects “a bowling ball” and thus call into question the consistency of science.

 

[Sarcelle]

mymamamary:
For good reason, Science is great, even I admit it so, but what ever happened to Philosophy, the Mother of Science? All questions come from the basic and fundamental ones.

Exactly!

This is why after one gets a Master’s degree, the next degree higher is a Ph.D or a Doctorate in Philosophy (insert name of field here.) This is why there is a Doctor of Philosophy in Physics degree and not a Doctor of Physics degree.

We need to get back philosophy into the high school curriculum. A well rounded school curriculum should include philosophy or its basics at least.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

…Hence a science that considers a timelessly true proposition like "For every utterance one may add another connected by the article “or”. " is more scientific than the one which considers a contingent fact like “65 million years ago the dinosaurs were destroyed”…

It sounds like you may be taking issue with statements that are declared with 100% confidence. From what I’ve found when information is conveyed for a main stream audience the confidence qualifiers are often omitted. So a statement like “we think it is likely that A is the case” is presented from other sources as “A is the case.” Unfortunately this may misrepresent those that have constructed an explanation for their observations.

 

[buffalo]

Empirical (observable, repeatable and predictable) science is great.

Consider though, science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe. It is restricted to 3 dimensions, our 5 senses and time. It is provisional. When science leaves its empirical realm and moves into philosophy it becomes religion, weakened by a priori materialistic bias. Methodological naturalism will not let the “divine foot in the door” .

---

Information, The Word, The Logos

“A byproduct of this artificial restriction on reasoning that excludes the reality of something of which we all know, which is mind, agency has certain causal powers that nature itself by itself does not have and when we encounter effects that we know only agents can produce it is rational to infer the activity of agency not to exclude it on principle and say well we must be scientific.” - Dr. Stephen C. Meyer

 

[buffalo]

Exactly!

This is why after one gets a Master’s degree, the next degree higher is a Ph.D or a Doctorate in Philosophy (insert name of field here.) This is why there is a Doctor of Philosophy in Physics degree and not a Doctor of Physics degree.

We need to get back philosophy into the high school curriculum. A well rounded school curriculum should include philosophy or its basics at least.

Agreed - philosophy should be a mandatory course.

 

[Sarcelle]

Empirical (observable, repeatable and predictable) science is great.

Consider though, science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe. It is restricted to 3 dimensions, our 5 senses and time. It is provisional. When science leaves its empirical realm and moves into philosophy it becomes religion, weakened by a priori materialistic bias. Methodological naturalism will not let the “divine foot in the door” .

---

“A byproduct of this artificial restriction on reasoning that excludes the reality of something of which we all know, which is mind, agency has certain causal powers that nature itself by itself does not have and when we encounter effects that we know only agents can produce it is rational to infer the activity of agency not to exclude it on principle and say well we must be scientific.” - Dr. Stephen C. Meyer

Spot on.

 

[mymamamary]

Empirical (observable, repeatable and predictable) science is great.

Consider though, science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe. It is restricted to 3 dimensions, our 5 senses and time. It is provisional. When science leaves its empirical realm and moves into philosophy it becomes religion, weakened by a priori materialistic bias. Methodological naturalism will not let the “divine foot in the door” .

---

Information, The Word, The Logos

“A byproduct of this artificial restriction on reasoning that excludes the reality of something of which we all know, which is mind, agency has certain causal powers that nature itself by itself does not have and when we encounter effects that we know only agents can produce it is rational to infer the activity of agency not to exclude it on principle and say well we must be scientific.” - Dr. Stephen C. Meyer

Amen.

 

[ricmat]

No, science isn’t arrogant; some scientists may be. Science has cured diseases that have plagued mankind for millennia, and has shown us the glory of God’s creation in achievements such as the Hubble telescope. I have never understood why some peoples’ faith is threatened by the idea that the Earth isn’t flat, that germs - and not evil spirits - cause disease, that the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth, and that the earth is older than the 5,240 years (or so) calculated by Bishop Ussher.

Thank you for such a wonderful example of why science is arrogant.

 

[Timothysis]

Am I the only one who sees the irony in a poster on an internet forum using a computer to ask "what is so great about science?"

The fact of the matter is that the Church is the foundation of modern science and the university system. The scientific discoveries after roughly 1100 A.D. are what paved the path for what we call the Enlightenment. Most of those scientists responsible for the great discoveries were churchmen, too. There are 35 craters on the moon named after Jesuit scientists. I wonder why???

 

[mathematoons]

Am I the only one who sees the irony in a poster on an internet forum using a computer to ask "what is so great about science?"

Science leads to technology, technology kills community and faith in Western culture, we have to use the technology to learn about our faith since it’s dead in everyone we meet, and you laugh at us for questioning science. How typical.

 

[Timothysis]

Science leads to technology,

Agree

technology kills community and faith in Western culture,

Disagree

we have to use the technology to learn about our faith since it’s dead in everyone we meet,

Again, disagree

and you laugh at us for questioning science. .

I wonder…should I question the science that allowed the doctor’s office to diagnose and treat a condition that has been causing me problems for the past couple of months? Or should I simply have suffered in silence, question the good and practicality of “science?”

I don’t laugh at you for questioning science; I simply shake my head in disbelief that some can be so misguided. I sincerely doubt that the thousands and thousands of catholic scientists throughout the centuries would support your position.

 

[Sarcelle]

Technology is essentially neutral. It can be used for good or for ill.

I support a charity organization called Mercy Corp which helps people in the developing countries use technology to obtain clean, safe, drinking water. Water borne pathogens are the cause of a lot of deaths, especially that of children, in the developing world. So here is an example of technology being used for good.

 

[mathematoons]

I wonder…should I question the science that allowed the doctor’s office to diagnose and treat a condition that has been causing me problems for the past couple of months? Or should I simply have suffered in silence, question the good and practicality of “science?”

The question itself suggests that you’re only thinking of yourself, or the world at best. The one thing you should be thinking about is salvation. That is all that matters.

I would undergo all kinds of torture if I somehow had perfect knowledge that even one soul could be saved by it.

I don’t laugh at you for questioning science; I simply shake my head in disbelief that some can be so misguided. I sincerely doubt that the thousands and thousands of catholic scientists throughout the centuries would support your position.

They couldn’t foresee the consequences of what they were doing.

The thing is, science doesn’t make it easier for us to be saved. Faith does; “without faith it is impossible to please God.” Calling this misguided is incredibly arrogant.

 

[Timothysis]

The question itself suggests that you’re only thinking of yourself, or the world at best. The one thing you should be thinking about is salvation. That is all that matters.

The thing is, science doesn’t make it easier for us to be saved. Faith does; “without faith it is impossible to please God.” Calling this misguided is incredibly arrogant.

Do you remove all things from life that detract from your commitment to salvation? Do you not listen to music, read non-religious books, enjoy the company of friends or even throw a ball with a dog?

The thing is, science has made living life better for the vast majority of the world. Would you prefer that agricultural methods from centuries ago still be employed that produced a fraction of the harvest that is possible now through scientific knowledge? Is it better for people in third world countries to routinely die from common illnesses than to vaccinate them and give them a chance to turn their eyes to God instead of watching their families and neighbors die? I don’t know of any saints or Church teachings that advocate the extreme privation of non-religious pursuit and study that you seem to advocate and I also fail to understand how science and faith are mutually exclusive. I stand by my statement of being “misguided.”