Questioning Science

[DJ Droood]

I've got two ... does that mean I have a Druid's Golden Bisickle???

Or possibly that you are bisicklesual.

[FoxPhantom]

So in this case... I have to question science

That is the essence of what science is...questioning....antithetical to modern religion, which is "believing" and "submitting" and "having faith".

Science is the druid's golden sickle

Wait, I thought Philosophy was the Druids golden sickle?

Even though I know Philosophy is questioning things to a point. Or is Philosophy another Science asking question?

[Fox of the Oaks]

DJ Droood wrote:
Merlyn wrote:

So in this case... I have to question science



That is the essence of what science is...questioning....antithetical to modern religion, which is "believing" and "submitting" and "having faith".

Science is the druid's golden sickle


Wait, I thought Philosophy was the Druids golden sickle?

Even though I know Philosophy is questioning things to a point. Or is Philosophy another Science asking question?

Hazard I some definitions:

Science is questioning the universe in a logical manner to find empirical evidence for a particular theory, within a particular community (those who accept the validity of science).
Religion is questioning the meaning of revalationary experience and subsequent texts for understanding existence within a particular community (those who accept the validity of religion).

Lack of questioning is seen in both the scientist and priest in particular dogmatic types. I know both fundamentalist scientists and fundamentalist religious people, neither do either any good, and some of them even want to convert others to their belief system. I also know those who have an understanding of science and of religion and are not fundamentalist about it, and they do not conflict for those people of broad intelligence.

So the 'theory' that religion is antithetical to science is not backed by enough evidence in my opinion to warrant it's validity, since I have met many religious people who do not simply believe, submit and have faith, and do actually question and examining various teachings - therefore your statement DJ Drood, I cannot consider truth given the evidence I have observed.

If people want to blow their own horns of love for science, at least back it with proper evidence according to what you consider a correct approach to knowledge - in this case, that would seem to be the scientific method. Otherwise it is you who is blindly believing things about religion.

FoxPhantom,
I consider philosophy the origin and conclusion of science and religion. It is certainly central to my Druidic path, and may be considered a science in the original sense of the word, from the latin scire - 'to know', but in my understanding, its aim is wisdom (philo-sophia, 'love of wisdom'), not simply knowledge of the objective world. It is fuelled by wanting to know, by questioning and learning, but never resting on the lazy certainty of dogma.

[DJ Droood]

So the 'theory' that religion is antithetical to science is not backed by enough evidence in my opinion to warrant it's validity, since I have met many religious people who do not simply believe, submit and have faith, and do actually question and examining various teachings - therefore your statement DJ Drood, I cannot consider truth given the evidence I have observed.

I won't pray that someday you will see the truth.

[Fox of the Oaks]

teach me then...

[FoxPhantom]

FoxPhantom,
I consider philosophy the origin and conclusion of science and religion. It is certainly central to my Druidic path, and may be considered a science in the original sense of the word, from the latin scire - 'to know', but in my understanding, its aim is wisdom (philo-sophia, 'love of wisdom'), not simply knowledge of the objective world. It is fuelled by wanting to know, by questioning and learning, but never resting on the lazy certainty of dogma.

Ok, so I guess that explains about Philosophy a lot that I did not read of. Never even thought that Philosophy is a science in the sense of it's own word.
Thanks, for the idea about it.

[Fox of the Oaks]

Philosophy as understood today may be thought of somewhat differently to it's traditional roots, just as is the case with many other disciplines and arts. Philosophy today may be, generally, more about having a strong rational argument rather than the quest for wisdom. To get to that understanding, you have to read Plato and similar figures from Ancient Greece, or perhaps other traditions, such as found in ancient India, China or among the Celtic people.

I would distinguish Science as different from Philosophy in the sense of Science being about the truth of the physical world, whereas Philosophy is inquiry into truth through more abstract approaches - like logic, aesthetics, metaphysics, and ethics. Though Science is also rooted in the abstract, through laws of Mathematics, which, while they may effect objects in the physical world, do not seem to exist themselves as physical things, or at least 'we' humans haven't got to the bottom of this yet... the age old faith in our methods...

Plato never considered his philosophical approach to be purely useful for the physical world. For him, it was more important to understand truths beyond the physical. Aristotle came after Plato, and was perhaps more an influence to guide the quest for truth into the physical and measurable world, he laid part of the foundation, along with other key thinkers, for modern science. There are many good books on the history of all this, such as Richard Tarnas' The Passion of the Western Mind.

What I said before is my understanding of it, and I don't expect anyone to take it as the truth without questioning it for oneself.

[DJ Droood]

teach me then...

How could i possibly, PineRaven? You say you know many fundamentalist scientists and Christians, while I know very few of them (none to be precise..well a few, but we only talk about hockey and stuff))....I only know them by their fruits...the former?...this computer...the later?....http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/christin ... d=11657283

[Heddwen]

I think there is a danger of getting into extremes here, fundie anything is the extreme of anything. IMO questioning anything is healthy. There is no blind faith or submission in my book. Religion and Spirituality are different concepts - one may be spiritual without following an organised religion or otherwise. I've always understood that skeptics/challenging is good. It's good to challenge. I left a cult like religeous organisation
because I challenged (it was a money and power issue).

As for science, again it's the extreme side of science that we challenge. IMO GMO's are science gone wrong. We're all aware of the positive goods that can come of it, such as medical advancements. but science for science sake (more power and money issues)...

Again I'm probably looking at extremes, there is a middle ground

[DJ Droood]

Again I'm probably looking at extremes, there is a middle ground

"Religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance."
— Sam Harris (The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason)

"Rather than bring the full force of our creativity and rationality to bear on the problems of ethics, social cohesion, and even spiritual experience, moderates merely ask that we relax our standard of adherence to ancient superstitions and taboos, while otherwise maintaining a belief system that was passed down to us from men and women whose lives were simply ravaged by their basic ignorance about the world."
— Sam Harris (The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason)

"Religious moderation is the direct result of taking scripture less and less seriously. So why not take it less seriously still? Why not admit the the Bible is merely a collection of imperfect books written by highly fallible human beings."
— Sam Harris (Letter to a Christian Nation)

[Heddwen]

I'm not sure I understand the point that you are making

[DJ Droood]

I'm not sure I understand the point that you are making

I like Sam Harris' caution re: moderates....they obfuscate in an attempt to make themselves feel more comfortable. At least you know where the fundamentally rational or the fundamentally superstitious person stands on issues.

[Heddwen]

I fail to see where religious moderation fits into the discussion. We can not claim to know each other, these are opinions and need to be owned as such.

...back to the main topic of this thread - Questioning Science...

[DJ Droood]

I fail to see where religious moderation fits into the discussion. We can not claim to know each other, these are opinions and need to be owned as such.

...back to the main topic of this thread - Questioning Science...

I think it fits because people who "question science" (not individual theories or findings, but "science" as a whole) are ignorant (willfully or otherwise) of what science is, and because of religious motivation, think their supernatural notions like "creationism" should be taken seriously or considered on par with Evolution...in the name of "tolerance" of course (because religious people have earned it!)...I don't think that Trojan horse fools anyone. I think it would be more honest to simply say "I reject science because it conflicts with my religious worldview and upsets me."

[Merlyn]

Is science our servant or master?
Should be the former but is too often the latter.

Is it adviser or dictator?
Again science fills both roles depending on our view and position in the scheme of life and culture.

Does science set the standard on truth? Is it a truth to be conformed to?
Truth is: that much of what science does isn't good for us. Conforming to science can be like lemmings jumping off a cliff. (same could be said for religion)

Do scientists have a monopoly on how we view reality? Are we their servants?
They do as they please too often, so within the structure of consumerism or capitalism it can be viewed like that IMO. Many good scientists never get a voice in what goes on as they are drowned out by the large money of grant funded science.

Should scientific knowledge be treated legalistically? How absolute or relative/provisional is it?
Often I do see legal recourse as a result of science. The global warming science could be an example. So could the genetic gerrymandering of crops.

If science is the best way to know nature, why hasn't mythology become extinct?
Science falls short of explaining all things, so mythology fills in the blanks. But then is science really any one thing? I see people call their study "Christian Science" is this really science?

Is science a religion to be followed or a tool to be used?
I would hope the latter.

"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?
What science says is very often false, often changes and personally I do not trust it, mostly because it is funded by grants by people and groups who want the science to match their views.

that's my view anyway.
And as to questioning science, we can simply not 'believe it' or we can directly disprove it by scientific method.
This however is a matter of peer review, acceptance by proof. Questioning and disproving possibly different in this way.
Science can impose very real dangers, and as the example of the genetically altered salmon, I do not have to disprove science to question it, I simply do not have to eat it.

[DJ Droood]

Like everything, it is a matter of choice and inclination. You can simply enjoy a sunrise, or If you are scientifically curious, you can investigate "why" the sun appears to rise over the horizon...learn about the rotation of the Earth, etc., or if you are religious, you can view the sunrise as an angry god driving a fire chariot being pursued by dogs, or whatever your particular theology is.

In this sense, science is a unifying force for humanity, as the scientist in India will arrive at the same conclusions, using science, as the scientist in France...with religion, each culture would have a different reason why the god was angry (although it is a safe bet to assume it has something to do with homosexuals), or how many dogs were chasing the fire chariot, and prolonged and bloody warfare would be the only way to settle it.

They are both opinions, and you should have a right to believe what you want.

[Merlyn]

Or not eat the salmon...

Locavore,
Merlyn

[Heddwen]

You should have a right to believe what you want - that speaks volumes

[Fox of the Oaks]

Ok, I'll leave my responses to the original questions, and swim elsewhere, some debates forever could continue.

---

Is science our servant or master?

As with anything with power, It depends on the wisdom of the mind wielding it.

Is it adviser or dictator?

what does it advise? what does it dictate? It depends on our relationship to it again.

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

Science on it's own is just an attempt at a factual world, whether individuals see this as the all-in-all or not is up to them.

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

I see more similarities these days between science and religion, so in this sense, it seems more-so a monopoly, but it depends whose ideas you take on board.

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

It could perhaps contribute to the evidence, but should never replace clear ethics and true justice.

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

Because science only exercises part of the brain (the logical/empirical/mathematically etc. part) - There is much more to the world than science, hence why there is more humankind explores than just thinking like a scientist.

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

Both are tools, 'following' can mean believing in something outside of yourself, which is disempowering in a way.

"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?

Yes, there are.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
- William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act I, Scene V.

[dreamguardian]

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

Yes.