What does it say about science if someone can know it and practice it without believing it?

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

Many people like to take every opportunity to remind us how exceptional the "scientific method" is.

 

It may be the best acting job that humans have ever scripted and performed. Many of the actors do not believe that they are acting according to any script--they believe that they are simply employing tools to get something independent of them to produce knowledge.

 

However, anybody can do it. The more of the script you learn, and the better that you perform it, the more likely you are to be officially recognized as a "scientist".

 

Most people are not interested in this big acting job. They are more interested in things like family, community, tradition, skilled trades, being consumers, etc. Therefore, they do not invest the time, money and energy required to learn and perform the script known as science.

 

If I am correct and it is all a big acting job, what does that say about science? What does it say about science that anybody could learn all of it, produce work in it, but not believe any of it?

 

I am not saying that anything from science is not true, not real, etc.

 

I am saying that it is possible to know everything that science tells us and to be successful at practicing science while not believing any of it. It is just a big acting job.

 

It may be that everything science tells us is an accurate model of reality. It may be that everything science tells us is an illusion. It does not make any difference either way. Just follow the script--attend the lectures, read the literature, conduct the experiments, write the papers and lab reports, etc.--and you can know and do science.

 

What will make a difference is if you do not follow the script. You will not have a job in science. You certainly will not be allowed to call yourself a scientist.

 

There is nothing else like it. Anybody can, say, call himself an athlete. Anybody can call herself a philosopher.

 

What all of this tells me is that "science" and the "scientific method" are the most scripted cultural acts that humans have ever constructed. I doubt that that is what people who say that science is exceptional have in mind, though.

[NickyTannock]

Define "Science" and the "Scientific Method" for me, please?

 

I ask because you seem to think it is a negative that you can perform it regardless of beliefs.

[Anthracite_Impreza]

Err... the fact anyone can do it, regardless of belief, kinda proves that it's correct...

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

13 minutes ago, MichaelTannock said:

Define "Science" and the "Scientific Method" for me, please?

 

I ask because you seem to think it is a negative that you can perform it regardless of beliefs.

 

Nobody has been able to demarcate science and non-science.

 

I keep reading philosophers saying that there is no "scientific method".

 

The scientific status of the social sciences is in doubt.

 

Meanwhile, traditions like Western philosophy try to be more like science to stay relevant and not lose funding. The same is probably true of history, theology, and other disciplines.

 

Science cannot be defined. The best that we can do is describe the various practices and institutions that at one point or another have been called "science".

 

If you want to know what I refer to as science, it is, basically, any academic discipline found in the modern university that claims to use the "scientific method" in its research.

[NickyTannock]

@InDefenseOfPOMO So you have no definition of either "Science" or the "Scientific Method", and the reason is because you're using Philosophers as your source for the definitions instead of Scientists?

[Anthracite_Impreza]

5 minutes ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

there is no "scientific method"

https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-of-the-scientific-method

^^^

[Yeast]

People believe what they perceive to be the truth.  One can't believe in science because there is no such thing as a scientific truth. Science is founded on theory. Theories can be disproved. If the truth is disproved, it is a falsehood. If a theory is disproved it just leads to another theory. Acting seems more appropriate in a religious setting. Religion is based on perceived truth. Thus I can act as though there was a God, heaven and an afterlife although all I will ever have is circumstantial evidence although I believe there are such things. If I didn't, I wouldn't believe. 

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

31 minutes ago, MichaelTannock said:

@InDefenseOfPOMO So you have no definition of either "Science" or the "Scientific Method", and the reason is because you're using Philosophers as your source for the definitions instead of Scientists?

 

Science cannot be defined.

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

53 minutes ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

Err... the fact anyone can do it, regardless of belief, kinda proves that it's correct...

 

And the fact that anybody, regardless of what he personally believes, can argue before a jury the case that an accused serial killer is not guilty proves that it is correct?

 

The fact that anybody, regardless of what she personally believes, can practice astrology proves that astrology is correct?

[NickyTannock]

@InDefenseOfPOMO From Merrium Webster:

 

Scientific Method noun

Principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

[Zectarash]

9 minutes ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

 

Science cannot be defined.

... Beg pardon?

 

The definition I usually use:

"The body of knowledge collected by people using the Scientific Method."

 

The (relevant) Merriam-Webster definitions:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

"1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

2a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study 

'the science of theology'

b: something (such as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge

'have it down to a science'

3a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method

b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE

4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws

'cooking is both a science and an art' "

 

Unless you mean something else entirely by the word. Even then, though, what good is a word if it not only has no definition, but can't be given one at all?

[Anthracite_Impreza]

2 minutes ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

And the fact that anybody, regardless of what he personally believes, can argue before a jury the case that an accused serial killer is not guilty proves that it is correct?

Clearly not, cos that's based on opinion, not hard data.

 

6 minutes ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

 

Science cannot be defined.

https://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-definition-of-science/

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/science

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/science
 

Still not sure what your argument is if I'm honest?

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

12 minutes ago, Yeast said:

People believe what they perceive to be the truth.  One can't believe in science because there is no such thing as a scientific truth. Science is founded on theory. Theories can be disproved. If the truth is disproved, it is a falsehood.

 

Everything that I read from the literature on the philosophy of science says that Popper's falsifiability fails as a definition of science.

 

 

15 minutes ago, Yeast said:

Acting seems more appropriate in a religious setting. Religion is based on perceived truth. Thus I can act as though there was a God, heaven and an afterlife although all I will ever have is circumstantial evidence although I believe there are such things. If I didn't, I wouldn't believe. 

 

Anything cultural is an acting job.

 

Science, however one tries to define it, is a cultural construct.

[NickyTannock]

1 minute ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

Science, however one tries to define it, is a cultural construct.

 

Science is a tool, like language.

[RoseGoesToYale]

Well, humans invented the concepts of science and the scientific method, just like they invented every concept for human use/understanding, and all humans are flawed. So every concept ever created by humans, be it science, math, language, religion, thought, culture, socially acceptable behavior, technology, whatever, is inherently flawed in some way.

 

Humans also invented and defined reality and logic, so even reality and logic are imperfect, as well.

[SithLord]

1 hour ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

What will make a difference is if you do not follow the script. You will not have a job in science. You certainly will not be allowed to call yourself a scientist.

 

There is nothing else like it. Anybody can, say, call himself an athlete. Anybody can call herself a philosopher.

This is wrong. If you play sports, you can call yourself an athlete, but people won't acknowledge it unless you do it professionally. Just like it is with scientists.

Philosophers are more general because you don't need to necessarily be employed to think about life and meanings of things.

But take teacher, anyone can teach, but does that mean everyone's a teacher? No. Same with sociologists and psychologists, if you're not doing it professionally, no one will acknowledge you calling yourself a psychologist or a sociologist.

[RoseGoesToYale]

2 minutes ago, SithGirl said:

sociologists and psychologists, if you're not doing it professionally, no one will acknowledge you calling yourself a psychologist or a sociologist.

Well, for sociology, actually yes, because there's no such official job title of "sociologist". Random people acknowledge me all the time as one for having merely studied it and having a slip of paper, which tbh still feels a little weird, but the field itself is quite bizarre)

[SithLord]

Just now, RoseGoesToYale said:

Well, for sociology, actually yes, because there's no such official job title of "sociologist". Random people acknowledge me all the time as one for having merely studied it and having a slip of paper, which tbh still feels a little weird, but the field itself is quite bizarre)

Maybe it's because I won't work in a related field then. I have a sociology degree which confuses people since I teach English and intend to continue teaching English. I've never once been called a sociologist by people.

Strange that you and I have very different experiences. 

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

18 minutes ago, Zectarash said:

Beg pardon?

 

The definition I usually use:

"The body of knowledge collected by people using the Scientific Method."

 

17 minutes ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

https://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-definition-of-science/

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/science

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/science
 

Still not sure what your argument is if I'm honest?

 

This is Philosophy of Science 101: there is no universally agreed on definition of "science" or the "scientific method".

 

Dictionaries do not change this. Dictionaries just tell us how words are used. Dictionaries do not demarcate the boundaries between things, such as science and non-science.

[NickyTannock]

1 minute ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

Dictionaries just tell us how words are used.

Yes! Why is this a problem?

[Anthracite_Impreza]

3 minutes ago, RoseGoesToYale said:

Well, for sociology, actually yes, because there's no such official job title of "sociologist". Random people acknowledge me all the time as one for having merely studied it and having a slip of paper, which tbh still feels a little weird, but the field itself is quite bizarre)

Sociology is considered a "soft" subject though, so people aren't as strict with requirements. It's like the difference between an artist and a plumber; really anyone can call themself an artist but it is generally required that a plumber has some sort of official recognition.

[RoseGoesToYale]

Just now, SithGirl said:

Maybe it's because I won't work in a related field then. I have a sociology degree which confuses people since I teach English and intend to continue teaching English. I've never once been called a sociologist by people.

Strange that you and I have very different experiences. 

It's because people fundamentally have no idea what sociology is. The other half that don't think I'm a sociologist think I must be a social worker, or think I studied history, or they demand I explain what sociology is because they don't know, and even after you've explained what it is, they're still confused because I have no freaking idea why! What is so incredibly difficult about understanding there is a specific branch of science dedicated to the study of human social systems, aka society? 🙄

 

Rant over. Please carry on.

[Anthracite_Impreza]

3 minutes ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

This is Philosophy of Science 101: there is no universally agreed on definition of "science" or the "scientific method".

 

Dictionaries do not change this. Dictionaries just tell us how words are used. Dictionaries do not demarcate the boundaries between things, such as science and non-science.

Not sure why any of this is a problem? Engineering is a science, mechanics is sort of a science, and valeting needs science to function. Everything relates to science in some way, but in varying degrees. Art is more "spiritual", if you wanna call it that, but the paint still needed science to be made. Science is literally just the study of... everything; it's how things are what they are. I have non-proven beliefs but I still think science can explain them; I just think we aren't at that stage yet.

[RoseGoesToYale]

1 minute ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

Sociology is considered a "soft" subject though, so people aren't as strict with requirements. It's like the difference between an artist and a plumber; really anyone can call themself an artist but it is generally required that a plumber has some sort of official recognition.

Not necessarily. If we're talking about having one's profession recognized as legitimate by others, the qualifications for that vary widely.

 

E.g. a person who paints for fun and sells those paintings at art fairs might call themself an artist, but an art critic would not call this designation legitimate because, under his definition, an artist must display their work in a gallery and be recognized with awards for artistry.

 

Similarly, a person might hold a plumbing certification which proves they passed all the necessary courses to work legally as a plumber, but they still suck at plumbing. Break every single gasket and clog every single toilet they touch, but somehow scrape through the job and get paid. They really should not be working as a plumber at all, yet society still recognizes he is a plumber. Although, some particularly angry customers may go as far as to say "No, they are not a plumber at all!"

 

Legitimacy of labels is all socially defined and very relative (as I'm sure every single human being in this forum will attest to).

[SithLord]

10 minutes ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

Dictionaries do not change this. Dictionaries just tell us how words are used. Dictionaries do not demarcate the boundaries between things, such as science and non-science.

I loled, no joke. Sorry, just, that's a terrible defense to not wanting to define something. 

"Dictionaries do not demarcate the boundaried between things, such as sexual and asexual." Can I used that for the next definition debates? 

 

Dictionaries tell us how words are used. So tell us how you're using it. Tell us the definition of the way you view "science." Because if you're using science like some people use religion, this topic could be as useful as screaming into the abyss. 

[NickyTannock]

3 minutes ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

Not sure why any of this is a problem?

I think they're expecting "Science" to be something independent of humans, and therefore see it as a failing that it's not.

[Anthracite_Impreza]

4 minutes ago, RoseGoesToYale said:

Not necessarily. If we're talking about having one's profession recognized as legitimate by others, the qualifications for that vary widely.

 

E.g. a person who paints for fun and sells those paintings at art fairs might call themself an artist, but an art critic would not call this designation legitimate because, under his definition, an artist must display their work in a gallery and be recognized with awards for artistry.

 

Similarly, a person might hold a plumbing certification which proves they passed all the necessary courses to work legally as a plumber, but they still suck at plumbing. Break every single gasket and clog every single toilet they touch, but somehow scrape through the job and get paid. They really should not be working as a plumber at all, yet society still recognizes he is a plumber. Although, some particularly angry customers may go as far as to say "No, they are not a plumber at all!"

 

Legitimacy of labels is all socially defined and very relative (as I'm sure every single human being in this forum will attest to).

This is true, but things like sociology, gender studies, art etc. are definitely seen as "soft" compared to engineering or maths (rightly or wrongly), that's what I'm getting at. People will generally require more evidence in "hard" subjects because they are considered more difficult.

 

1 minute ago, MichaelTannock said:

I think they're expecting "Science" to be something independent of humans, and therefore see it as a failing that it's not.

I mean, in a way it is, in that there are universal laws that cannot be broken (like speed of sound), but yes, whenever humans stick their noses in you'll always get error and bias.

[NickyTannock]

2 minutes ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

I mean, in a way it is, in that there are universal laws that cannot be broken (like speed of sound), but yes, whenever humans stick their noses in you'll always get error and bias.

That's not exactly what I mean.
Science is the study of things that exist independent of humans, but without said humans said studying wouldn't take place.

[RoseGoesToYale]

1 minute ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

there are universal laws that cannot be broken (like speed of sound),

Or so we think...

 

We thought it was a universal law that the universe was some 13.8 billion years old. But then we found a star that's about 14.5 billion years old. So now we've run into a paradox.

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

22 minutes ago, MichaelTannock said:

Yes! Why is this a problem?

 

The question of what really is and is not science remains.