Questioning Science

[treegod]

Just some questions to have a think about, even answer if you want (also shared some while ago on another board).

Is science our servant or master?

Is it adviser or dictator?

Does science set the standard on truth? Is it a truth to be conformed to?

Do scientists have a monopoly on how we view reality? Are we their servants?

Should scientific knowledge be treated legalistically? How absolute or relative/provisional is it?

If science is the best way to know nature, why hasn't mythology become extinct?

Is science a religion to be followed or a tool to be used?

"Science say this" and "science says that". Does every aspect of your life always refer to what "science says" or are there moments when what "science says" seems irrelevant?

Closing thoughts: Scientific knowledge does not conform 100% to nature, it doesn't know everything though it is in a continuous process of conforming to nature.

Without making any efforts I conform to nature 100%. Even my most unscientific thought is determined by the nature of nature and cannot defy it.

[Lily]

Is science our servant or master?
It i just a tool

Is it adviser or dictator?
adviser, see below

Does science set the standard on truth? Is it a truth to be conformed to?
in everyday reality, I think it does. And you have to conform to it to a certain extent. Else you'll start jumping off buildings.

Do scientists have a monopoly on how we view reality? Are we their servants?
Yes. Bow to me. I have a PhD.

Should scientific knowledge be treated legalistically? How absolute or relative/provisional is it?
uhmm.. I don't get it. but it is provisional - knowledge is considered accurate until proven otherwise.

If science is the best way to know nature, why hasn't mythology become extinct?
because human brains create mythology, nothing to stop them.

Is science a religion to be followed or a tool to be used?
a tool to be used. if you think it is religion, you have understood nothing.

"Science say this" and "science says that". Does every aspect of your life always refer to what "science says" or are there moments when what "science says" seems irrelevant?
I don't think that way most of my day. But then again most of my day is quite ordinary and will conform to science.

Closing thoughts: Scientific knowledge does not conform 100% to nature, it doesn't know everything though it is in a continuous process of conforming to nature.
it does not conform 100%? really? if it did not, it would not be science.
True, it does not know everything YET, but every bit of knowledge acquired, if accurate, conforms to nature. Otherwise it would be false.

Sheesh. why are pagans backlashing so much. It's not that hard!

[treegod]

Some good answers. Like them

Sheesh. why are pagans backlashing so much. It's not that hard!

Backlashing? Where?

[treegod]

Do scientists have a monopoly on how we view reality? Are we their servants?
Yes. Bow to me. I have a PhD.

Scrap Democracy, it is Technocracy that we need! Meer mortals like I is not wurthy

Should scientific knowledge be treated legalistically? How absolute or relative/provisional is it?
uhmm.. I don't get it. but it is provisional - knowledge is considered accurate until proven otherwise.

That's what I was talking about. It's also what I'm saying, more or less, with regards to science, or rather scientific knowledge not conforming 100% to nature. It's in a continuous process of conforming (and I have the feeling this may carry on forever in a sort of "infinite regression", getting closer but never quite "there" )

[Merlyn]

Science? indeed a new name for magic as far as some may see it..
In this sense humanity released itself from many problems of the dark ages.

Should scientific knowledge be treated legalistically?

There was a time when;
The origin of the earth and it's age was determined by the bible.
The highest royalty of the time believed the earth was flat.
It was thought that, the planets, sun and all revolved around the earth.
And to say anything to the contrary was a crime against god.
In that time, belief was science, and the two do still hold some attributes to each other.
We say we know what an atom looks like, but have you ever seen an electron up close?

We say our math can prove things like gravity, and math is a strong backbone to science.
But honestly many things are theory, and this takes a way of believing, all be it not in a god sense.
We have evolved to a point, and science is indeed still used to convict criminals. Is it a crime not to believe science?
Just ask the global warming "believers"

[DJ Droood]

Science is questioning. Belief is arriving at an answer and stopping. Faith is arriving at an answer you know is wrong and stopping.

[Merlyn]

So to say "I have faith in you" would be wrong?

[DJ Droood]

So to say "I have faith in you" would be wrong?

Yes, because you don't know me, so you know you can't stand behind a statement like that.

[saphera]

Is it a 'science' to question science?

[treegod]

Is it a 'science' to question science?

Can the scientific method be used to test the viability of the scientific method?

I'm feeling a bit dizzy now...

[Frog]

Is it a 'science' to question science?

I'm sure that somewhere, someone has a grant to study that...
But to answer the questions. This is my view.

Is science our servant or master?
It should be our servant, but for many "faith" is not an acceptable solution.

Is it adviser or dictator?
As above really. In order to define our understanding, others will want to see a creditation of the information based on a peer-review. This would be acceptable in many cases, however some tests are expensive and geared to the larger industries who can afford testing, so that more "natural" solutions are discounted - not because they don't work, but because not enough money has been poured into "proving" that they do.

Does science set the standard on truth? Is it a truth to be conformed to?
See above.

Do scientists have a monopoly on how we view reality? Are we their servants?
I think there are a great many scientists that believe that this is the case. However, once we consider those who would read the scriptures and accept the word printed there over peer-reviewed documents, then the monopoly is shaken.

Should scientific knowledge be treated legalistically? How absolute or relative/provisional is it?
Not sure what this question is referring to - patents?

If science is the best way to know nature, why hasn't mythology become extinct?
Science has defined much about nature - the how it works. Mythology defines the why and how it came to be. Mythology also allows us to delve deeper into those elements that science can't pin down to atoms, quarks etc - such as psychology.

Is science a religion to be followed or a tool to be used?
For many science IS the new religion. It removes the belief in the implausable (the God concept) and only focuses on the reality.
For me though, it is a tool - part of the Ovate and Druidic toolkit. I saw a programme on TV that was hosted by athiests; one of the speakers talked about the beauty of the flower and how it had nothing to do with God but everything to do with science; a fair pair point (the flower uses the colour on the petal and smell as a tool to attract insects to pollonate or scare), but the concept of beauty is abstract and comparative - and as such (IMO) cannot be considered to be scientific.


My closing thoughts is that scientific research is really opening up our understanding of the world around us. It explains how a lizard can stick to vertical or overhanging surfaces. And all that is really cool as it allows me to use very unscientific approaches to appreciate the wonder, beauty and majesty of the world around me.

[saphera]

Yes, but.... Is the questioning of science... a scientific process in itself?

[Cercatore]

Yes, but.... Is the questioning of science... a scientific process in itself?

I'd argue that the questioning of science is the nature of the scientific process.

[Kernos]

Some good answers. Like them

Sheesh. why are pagans backlashing so much. It's not that hard!

Backlashing? Where?

Your questions imply a distrust in the scientific method or even an anti-science stance. Of course the implication may not be accurate.

I agree with Lily, except I would say the Science does not 'say' anything. Only people say things.

[Merlyn]

Yes, but.... Is the questioning of science... a scientific process in itself?

I think so, yes.

[treegod]

Your questions imply a distrust in the scientific method or even an anti-science stance. Of course the implication may not be accurate.

I do trust the scientific method and I'm certainly not anti-science. As my presense on Caer Abred might confirm My intention for these questions is just as a reflection of the place of science in our lives, put it into a human perspective or as I said at the beginning "Just some questions to have a think about". And people can take those questions how they want.

I agree with Lily, except I would say the Science does not 'say' anything. Only people say things.

Quite agree. Scientific knowledge is a human domain, limited by what we can know and want to know. Though obviously not the objective reality that science studies

[treegod]

Yes, but.... Is the questioning of science... a scientific process in itself?

That depends on whether you use the scientific method or not. I mean you can use a superstitious or irrational stance to question science, but that doesn't make it necessarily scientific.

Are the questions above scientific? I don't know. I don't think so, they're meant to evoke subjective and personal perspectives rather than establish objective facts and figures that are true whatever our opinions of them are.

[Kernos]

Yes, but.... Is the questioning of science... a scientific process in itself?

...Are the questions above scientific? I don't know. I don't think so, they're meant to evoke subjective and personal perspectives rather than establish objective facts and figures that are true whatever our opinions of them are.

They are if they can be tested.

[treegod]

Yes, but.... Is the questioning of science... a scientific process in itself?

...Are the questions above scientific? I don't know. I don't think so, they're meant to evoke subjective and personal perspectives rather than establish objective facts and figures that are true whatever our opinions of them are.

They are if they can be tested.

No, that just makes the testing scientific, and the questions themselves the object of scientific testing. Doesn't it?

And then that depends with what principles you test them with. I could be an fundamentalist Christian conducting a test to see if they conform with the Bible. That test might become scientific by accident but not by intention lol

[Merlyn]

If questioning science was not scientific, we would still believe things science has disproved, proven or made able to be discovered.
So then.. science can be a matter of belief.. We now "believe" the world is pretty much a round sphere, as opposed to flat. We believed global warming would only mean hotter and hotter, now we believe it will mean crazy all over the map weather with an average warmer trend. Lesson here is to not stand on theory too soon.

Less & less so belief as we go on though.. further and further away from belief and closer to testing the hell out of theory. And rightly so.