This seems to be antithetical to my “message of purpose” thread in many ways.
No, science is not the extension of religion in secular form. Religion and science are completely different - in so many ways we can write books on how they are different. I don’t even know where to begin because this claim is so wild, there’s nowhere to begin but everywhere. It seems that someone who makes this claim should back it up first - not just because the burden of proof is on the person making that claim, but because its so bizarre there’s no where to start arguing against because it doesn’t make any reason as to how.
Arminius
March 28, 2016, 3:42pm
6
Science is similar to religion, and scientism is similar to theism.
Amorphos
March 28, 2016, 10:31pm
7
Maybe we treat science like a religion ~ especially against religion. Many atheists [e.g. dawkins] have spoken out against religion. The general consensus is that anything occult/religious is whack, which is probably true, but it is not possible to describe both ourselves and the universe only in terms of the physics. There are metaphysics and there may be spiritual elements to that, but they wont pertain to physics.
If you have a system for understanding the world, but one which does not [cannot] fully explain it, then to state that everything but science is untrue, is false at least in part. Ergo >is a belief system<…
= science is a ‘religion’ [in that sense].
_
You should back that up with reason. Because I can just as easily same science is not similar to religion and scientism is similar to religion.
Moreno
March 28, 2016, 10:41pm
9
Time to define terms.
what counts as science?
If I try various keys from a set of keys and the round headed one always opens the door, I have learned empirically that that key fits that door and opens and also locks it. In the jungle we learned all sorts of things like this empirically with natural artifacts and patterns.
Was this off, an ism, where did the problem arise?
Science includes models. Is this where the problems arise`?
Do they arise in all cases of science or scientific investigation or scientific models?
Do the problems arise from developing ontology from methodology?
From saying this methodology works and no other works?
I can’t really see saying science, in general, is religion? Not because I share WWWs sense that this is besmirtching religion, I mean science, well something is being besmirched or is it, but because they seem like different sets of processes,w ith some overlaps.
Moreno
March 28, 2016, 10:45pm
10
How so`? All of it?
Uccisore
March 28, 2016, 10:46pm
11
I think this thread is defining science is a way very alien to me.
Arminius
March 29, 2016, 3:04pm
12
I have already backed it up in other threads, for example in your thread called “Is knowledge also a belief?”. The core is what we can call “information” - in order to be “in form” (to survive). This leads at last, namely when it comes to higher culture, to the question: „How can I be sure that the information is true?“ All understanding has to do with information, but not all information has to do with understanding. A stone that gives information to a geologist does not need to understand the information that it gives. And all knowledge is information, but not all information is knowledge. Belief is also based on information, but not all information leads to belief. Information is the superordination of belief and knowledge.
Moreno
March 29, 2016, 3:08pm
13
Arminius:
I have already backed it up in other threads, for example in your thread called “Is knowledge also a belief?”. The core is what we can call “information” - in order to be “in form” (to survive). This leads at last, namely when it comes to higher culture, to the question: „How can I be sure that the information is true?“ All understanding has to do with information, but not all information has to do with understanding. A stone that gives information to a geologist does not need to understand the information that it gives. And all knowledge is information, but not all information is knowledge. Belief is also based on information, but not all information leads to belief. Information is the superordination of belief and knowledge.
[attachment=0]Epistemology_for_Beginners.gif[/attachment]
I would put information in the outer circle, belief as the next circle with knowledge as the innermost circle completely contained in belief. To me knowledge is a subset of beliefs, those beliefs that have passed some specific, more rigorous criteria the rest of beliefs have not.
Arminius:
I have already backed it up in other threads, for example in your thread called “Is knowledge also a belief?”. The core is what we can call “information” - in order to be “in form” (to survive). This leads at last, namely when it comes to higher culture, to the question: „How can I be sure that the information is true?“ All understanding has to do with information, but not all information has to do with understanding. A stone that gives information to a geologist does not need to understand the information that it gives. And all knowledge is information, but not all information is knowledge. Belief is also based on information, but not all information leads to belief. Information is the superordination of belief and knowledge.
[attachment=0]Epistemology_for_Beginners.gif[/attachment]
Information isn’t a matter of being true or false. Understanding it is. I don’t know how you backed it up at all, other than a vague easily discredit statements such as this that you state above. Science uses rigorous methods to generate understanding of things, far different from religion which just takes it on basic acceptance that its true.
Arminius
March 29, 2016, 3:25pm
15
Moreno:
Arminius:
I have already backed it up in other threads, for example in your thread called “Is knowledge also a belief?”. The core is what we can call “information” - in order to be “in form” (to survive). This leads at last, namely when it comes to higher culture, to the question: „How can I be sure that the information is true?“ All understanding has to do with information, but not all information has to do with understanding. A stone that gives information to a geologist does not need to understand the information that it gives. And all knowledge is information, but not all information is knowledge. Belief is also based on information, but not all information leads to belief. Information is the superordination of belief and knowledge.
[attachment=0]Epistemology_for_Beginners.gif[/attachment]
I would put information in the outer circle, belief as the next circle with knowledge as the innermost circle completely contained in belief. To me knowledge is a subset of beliefs, those beliefs that have passed some specific, more rigorous criteria the rest of beliefs have not.
Information is in the outer circle - as the superset of belief and knowledge -, and it is also an intersection of belief and knowledge. Both belief and knowledge have their origin in information (their intersection) and lead to information (their superset). The intersection and the outer circle had been one circle (without belief and knowledge) before belief and knowledge were “born”. A stone (for example) does not have belief or knowledge but does nevertheless give information.
Arminius:
Information is in the outer circle - as the superset of belief and knowledge -, and it is also an intersection of belief and knowledge. Both belief and knowledge have their origin in information (their intersection) and lead to information (their superset). The intersection and the outer circle had been one circle (without belief and knowledge) before belief and knowledge were “born”. A stone (for example) does not have belief or knowledge but does nevertheless give information.
I would not see it as such, for good reason already outlined in my other thread. This is just some subjective categorization that really doesn’t mean much to me. Belief and knowledge have their origin in information, absolutely, but that isn’t saying much about the nature of belief and the nature of knowledge. Everything about us has our origin in information. Our consciousness, our feelings, our sight, our touch, all of our senses. All of our thoughts. All of what we perceive, all has its origins in information. Information can be said to be the origin of everything. Everything is information. Thus, it doesn’t really say much.
Arminius
March 29, 2016, 4:11pm
17
All understanding has to do with information, but not all information has to do with understanding. So Information is also a matter of being true or false.
You are trying to be rhetorical. Give up! Surrender!
WW_III_ANGRY:
I don’t know how you backed it up at all, other than a vague easily discredit statements such as this that you state above. Science uses rigorous methods to generate understanding of things, far different from religion which just takes it on basic acceptance that its true.
Firstly: Science gets information. And science consists of scientists, thus humans. Humans are fallible. In addition: Most humans are corrupt. Most humans can easily be bought.
Your platitudes do not convince.
How many humans are scientists? How many humans were religious priests in the past 6000 years? It was and is always the same percental number, and that was and is no accident. Most of the other humans (mostly 99%) do not distinguish scientistic priest from religious priests. These priests have always been called “experts” and “specialists” and in reality always been functionaries of the rulers.
The relationship between religion and science has been a subject of study since classical antiquity, addressed by philosophers, theologians, scientists, and others. Perspectives from different geographical regions, cultures and historical epochs are diverse, with some characterizing the relationship as one of conflict, others describing it as one of harmony, and others proposing little interaction.
Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence, while religions include revelation, faith and sacredness whilst also acknowledging philosophical and metaphysical explanations with regard to the study of the Universe. Neither science nor religion are unchanging, timeless, or static because both are complex social and cultural endeavors that have changed through time across languages and cultures.[1] Most scientific and technical innovations prior to the Scientific revolution were achieved by societies organized by religious traditions. Elements of the scientific method were pioneered by ancient pagan, Islamic, and Christian scholars. Roger Bacon, who is often credited with formalizing the scientific method, was a Franciscan friar.[2] Hinduism has historically embraced reason and empiricism, holding that science brings legitimate, but incomplete knowledge of the world. Confucian thought has held different views of science over time. Most Buddhists today view science as complementary to their beliefs.
Events in Europe such as the Galileo affair, associated with the scientific revolution and the Age of Enlightenment, led scholars such as John William Draper to postulate a conflict thesis, holding that religion and science have been in conflict methodologically, factually and politically throughout history. This thesis is held by some contemporary scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Steven Weinberg and Carl Sagan, and some creationists. While the conflict thesis remains popular for the public, it has lost favor among most contemporary historians of science.[3][4][5][6][7][8]
Many scientists, philosophers, and theologians throughout history, such as Francisco Ayala, Kenneth R. Miller and Francis Collins, have seen compatibility or independence between religion and science. Biologist Stephen Jay Gould, other scientists, and some contemporary theologians hold that religion and science are non-overlapping magisteria, addressing fundamentally separate forms of knowledge and aspects of life. Some theologians or historians of science, including John Lennox, Thomas Berry, Brian Swimme and Ken Wilber propose an interconnection between science and religion, while others such as Ian Barbour believe there are even parallels.
Public acceptance of scientific facts may be influenced by religion; many in the United States reject the idea of evolution by natural selection, especially regarding human beings. Nevertheless, the American National Academy of Sciences has written that “the evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith”, a view officially endorsed by many religious denominations globally.[9]
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relatio … nd_science
Philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend advanced the idea of epistemological anarchism, which holds that there are no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge, and that the idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed rules is unrealistic, pernicious and detrimental to science itself.[1] Feyerabend advocates a democratic society where science is treated as an equal to other ideologies or social institutions such as religion, and education, or magic and mythology, and considers the dominance of science in society authoritarian and unjustified.[1] He also contended (along with Imre Lakatos) that the demarcation problem of distinguishing science from pseudoscience on objective grounds is not possible and thus fatal to the notion of science running according to fixed, universal rules.[1]
Feyerabend also criticized science for not having evidence for its own philosophical precepts. Particularly the notion of Uniformity of Law and the Uniformity of Process across time and space, as noted by Steven Jay Gould.[2] “We have to realize that a unified theory of the physical world simply does not exist” says Feyerabend, “We have theories that work in restricted regions, we have purely formal attempts to condense them into a single formula, we have lots of unfounded claims (such as the claim that all of chemistry can be reduced to physics), phenomena that do not fit into the accepted framework are suppressed; in physics, which many scientists regard as the one really basic science, we have now at least three different points of view…without a promise of conceptual (and not only formal) unification”.[3] In other words, science is begging the question when it presupposes that there is a universal truth with no proof thereof.
Historian Jacques Barzun termed science “a faith as fanatical as any in history” and warned against the use of scientific thought to suppress considerations of meaning as integral to human existence.[4]
Sociologist Stanley Aronowitz scrutinizes science for operating with the presumption that the only acceptable criticisms of science are those conducted within the methodological framework that science has set up for itself. That science insists that only those who have been inducted into its community, through means of training and credentials, are qualified to make these criticisms.[5] Aronowitz also alleges that while scientists consider it absurd that Fundamentalist Christianity uses biblical references to bolster their claim that the Bible is true, scientists pull the same tactic by using the tools of science to settle disputes concerning its own validity.[6]
Philosopher of religion Alan Watts criticized science for operating under a materialist model of the world that he posited is simply a modified version of the Abrahamic worldview, that “the universe is constructed and maintained by a Lawmaker” (commonly identified as God or the Logos). Watts asserts that during the rise of secularism through the 18th to 20th century when scientific philosophers got rid of the notion of a lawmaker they kept the notion of law, and that the idea that the world is a material machine run by law is a presumption just as unscientific as religious doctrines that affirm it is a material machine made and run by a lawmaker.[7]
Many issues damage the relationship of science to the media and the use of science and scientific arguments by politicians. As a very broad generalisation, many politicians seek certainties and facts whilst scientists typically offer probabilities and caveats. However, politicians’ ability to be heard in the mass media frequently distorts the scientific understanding by the public. Examples in Britain include the controversy over the MMR inoculation, and the 1988 forced resignation of a government minister, Edwina Currie, for revealing the high probability that battery eggs were contaminated with Salmonella.[35]
Some scientists and philosophers suggest that scientific theories are more or less shaped by the dominant political, economic, or cultural models of the time, even though the scientific community may claim to be exempt from social influences and historical conditions.[36][37] For example, Zoologist Peter Kropotkin thought that the Darwinian theory of evolution overstressed a painful “we must struggle to survive” way of life, which he said was influenced by capitalism and the struggling lifestyles people lived within it.[9][38] Karl Marx also thought that science was largely driven by and used as capital.[39]
Robert Anton Wilson, Stanley Aronowitz, and Paul Feyerabend all thought that the military-industrial complex, large corporations, and the grants that came from them had an immense influence over the research and even results of scientific experiments.[1][40][41][42] Aronowitz even went as far as to say “It does not matter that the scientific community ritualistically denies its alliance with economic/industrial and military power. The evidence is overwhelming that such is the case. Thus, every major power has a national science policy; the United States Military appropriates billions each year for ‘basic’ as well as ‘applied’ research”.[42]
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_science
Epistemological anarchism is an epistemological theory advanced by Austrian philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend which holds that there are no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge. It holds that the idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed rules is unrealistic, pernicious, and detrimental to science itself.[1]
The use of the term anarchism in the name reflected the methodological pluralism prescription of the theory, as the purported scientific method does not have a monopoly on truth or useful results. Feyerabend once famously said that because there is no fixed scientific method, it is best to have an “anything goes” attitude toward methodologies.[1] Feyerabend felt that science started as a liberating movement, but over time it had become increasingly dogmatic and rigid, and therefore had become increasingly an ideology, and, despite its successes, science had started to attain some oppressive features, and it was not possible to come up with an unambiguous way to distinguish science from religion, magic, or mythology. He felt the exclusive dominance of science as a means of directing society was authoritarian and ungrounded.[1] Promulgation of the theory earned Feyerabend the title of “the worst enemy of science” from his detractors.[2
The theory draws on the observation that there is no identifiable fixed scientific method that is consistent with the practices of the paradigm of scientific progress – the scientific revolution.[2] It is a radical critique of rationalist and empiricist historiography which tend to represent the heroes of the scientific revolution as scrupulous researchers reliant on empirical research, whereas Feyerabend countered that Galileo for example, relied on rhetoric, propaganda and epistemological tricks to support his doctrine of heliocentrism, and that aesthetic criteria, personal whims and social factors were far more prevalent than the dominant historiographies allowed.[2]
Scientific laws such as those posited by Aristotelian or Newtonian physics that assumed the stance of objective models of the universe have been found to come short in describing the entirety of the universe. The movement of universal models from Aristotelian to Newtonian physics to Einstein’s relativity theory, where each preceding theory has been refuted as entirely universal model of reality, illustrates for the epistemological anarchist that scientific theories do not correspond to truth, as they are in part cultural manifestations, and ergo not objective.[1][3] Feyerabend drew a comparison between one scientific paradigm triumphing over or superseding another, in the same manner a given myth is adapted and appropriated by a new, triumphant successor myth in comparative mythology. Feyerabend contended, with Imre Lakatos, that the demarcation problem of distinguishing on objective grounds science from pseudoscience was irresolvable and thus fatal to the notion of science run according to fixed, universal rules.[1]
Feyerabend also notes that science’s success is not solely due to its own methods, but also to its having taken in knowledge from unscientific sources. In turn the notion that there is no knowledge outside science is a ‘convenient fairy-tale’ held only by dogmatists who distort history for the convenience of scientific institutions.[4] For instance, Copernicus was heavily influenced by Pythagoras, whose view of the world had previously been rejected as mystical and irrational. Hermetic writings played an important role in the works of Copernicus as well as Newton.[5] There exists fairly accurate astronomical knowledge that reaches back even to the Stone Age, measured in stone observatories in England and the South Pacific.[5] Pre-Modern inventions such as crop rotation, hybrid plants, chemical inventions and architectural achievements not yet understood like that of the pyramids are all examples which threaten the notion that science is the only means of attaining knowledge.[5]
Feyerabend also criticized science for not having evidence for its own philosophical precepts, particularly the notions of Uniformity of Law and of Uniformity of Process across time and space. “We have to realize that a unified theory of the physical world simply does not exist,” said Feyerabend; “we have theories that work in restricted regions, we have purely formal attempts to condense them into a single formula, we have lots of unfounded claims (such as the claim that all of chemistry can be reduced to physics), phenomena that do not fit into the accepted framework are suppressed; in physics, which many scientists regard as the one really basic science, we have now at least three different points of view…without a promise of conceptual (and not only formal) unification”.[6]
Furthermore, Feyerabend held that deciding between competing scientific accounts was complicated by the incommensurability of scientific theories. Incommensurability means that scientific theories cannot be reconciled or synthesized because the interpretation and practice of science is always informed by theoretical assumptions, which leads to proponents of competing theories using different terms, engaged in different language-games and thus talking past each other. This for Feyerabend was another reason why the idea of science as proceeding according to universal, fixed laws was both historically inaccurate and prescriptively useless.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistem … _anarchism
Arminius:
I have already backed it up in other threads, for example in your thread called “Is knowledge also a belief?”. The core is what we can call “information” - in order to be “in form” (to survive). This leads at last, namely when it comes to higher culture, to the question: „How can I be sure that the information is true?“ All understanding has to do with information, but not all information has to do with understanding. A stone that gives information to a geologist does not need to understand the information that it gives. And all knowledge is information, but not all information is knowledge. Belief is also based on information, but not all information leads to belief. Information is the superordination of belief and knowledge.
All understanding has to do with information, but not all information has to do with understanding. So Information is also a matter of being true or false.
You are trying to be rhetorical. Give up! Surrender!
Firstly: Science gets information. And science consists of scientists, thus humans. Humans are fallible. In addition: Most humans are corrupt. Most humans can easily be bought.
Your platitudes do not convince.
How many humans are scientists? How many humans were religious priests in the past 6000 years? It was an is always the same percental number, and that was and is no accident. Most of the other humans (mostly 99%) do not distinguish scientistic priest from religious priests. These priests have always been called “experts” and “specialists” and in reality always been functionaries of the rulers.
Understanding is the only means of what is true or false. Information simply “is” What it “is”, is a matter of understanding. If it’s true, is a matter of understanding what it “is”. This is not a matter of rhetoric. I think you need to look deeper into the matter.
Arminius
March 29, 2016, 11:40pm
22
WW_III_ANGRY:
Arminius:
I have already backed it up in other threads, for example in your thread called “Is knowledge also a belief?”. The core is what we can call “information” - in order to be “in form” (to survive). This leads at last, namely when it comes to higher culture, to the question: „How can I be sure that the information is true?“ All understanding has to do with information, but not all information has to do with understanding. A stone that gives information to a geologist does not need to understand the information that it gives. And all knowledge is information, but not all information is knowledge. Belief is also based on information, but not all information leads to belief. Information is the superordination of belief and knowledge.
All understanding has to do with information, but not all information has to do with understanding. So Information is also a matter of being true or false.
You are trying to be rhetorical. Give up! Surrender!
Firstly: Science gets information. And science consists of scientists, thus humans. Humans are fallible. In addition: Most humans are corrupt. Most humans can easily be bought.
Your platitudes do not convince.
How many humans are scientists? How many humans were religious priests in the past 6000 years? It was an is always the same percental number, and that was and is no accident. Most of the other humans (mostly 99%) do not distinguish scientistic priest from religious priests. These priests have always been called “experts” and “specialists” and in reality always been functionaries of the rulers.
Understanding is the only means of what is true or false. Information simply “is” What it “is”, is a matter of understanding. If it’s true, is a matter of understanding what it “is”. This is not a matter of rhetoric. I think you need to look deeper into the matter.
It does not matter how many times you say a falsehood: it does not get more true by repeating it.
Information is the whole process, whereas understanding is merely a part of it. You do not need to know or to understand the informations you give. For example: I have got Information about you, but you do not know and possibly not understand this information. Another example: trees do not know and not understand the information they give and get. Many many other examples can be given. Most living beings are without understanding but with information. And these most living beings do what is true or false, although or, better, because they are not capable of understanding, knowing, thinking - but capable of giving and getting information. They do not need to know and to understand what true or false is - they just do it (and mostly with more success than those “higher” living beings with with knowing and understanding).
You , WW III Angry, are the one who needs to look deeper into the matter.
I noticed nobody commented on my recent posts. Why is that?
