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

[LeChat]

28 minutes ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

...Science is whatever the people with the power to influence such things--politicians, wealthy people, high-ranking education administrators, philosophers, and, yes, people who are practicing science--decide it is at the moment. There is no universal definition of science. Right now people can get away with calling the academic discipline of Economics a science. Ten years from now it may be officially policy that Economics is not and cannot be science...

 

What is or is not "science"--and why it is or is not "science"--is arbitrary...Maybe if science is the apex of human knowledge and understanding and it can conceivably be considered bogus even by those who excel at it then all knowledge and understanding is ultimately meaningless.

Oh, now I think I understand what you mean. Yes, sometimes, politics are inserted in science (not necessarily by scientists), but that doesn't mean that all scientists agree with that. For example, after Alabama meteorologists tweeted to let Alabama residents know that they weren't in danger of a hurricane (even though the president tweeted that Alabama was in the path), the head of NOAA told all their staff to not contradict the president (which staff weren't happy about).

 

Well, apparently, others found out that the head of NOAA campaigned for Trump. The president does have the ability to nominate certain people to run departments, which, yes, is dangerous when it's done more for political reasons than regarding a job/for facts, etc.

 

https://oceanleadership.org/trump-taps-accuweather-ceo-head-noaa-breaking-precedent-nominating-scientists/

[NickyTannock]

@LeChat They're going further than that. They're essentially devaluing Science because it's a creation of humans, even though that doesn't matter.

[NickyTannock]

44 minutes ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

There is no universal thing called "science". Everything called "science" has been something constructed culturally. What is or is not "science"; what the word does or does not refer to; etc. varies from time to time, place to place, person to person. Some people might tell you that the academic discipline known as History is a "science". Others will tell that, due to something arbitrary such as Popper's falsifiability, the academic discipline of History cannot be "science".

Languages are also something that's constructed culturally, but that doesn't make languages any less useful, and it doesn't make science any less useful.

 

 

49 minutes ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

No, I am not speaking for myself. It is an observable historical and sociological fact that whatever has had the honor of being called "science" has in practice been a means to some kind of end. Getting an explanation. Answering a question. Satisfying someone's curiosity. Solving a problem. Developing a new weapon. Producing a paper to getting a passing grade in a class because you want to graduate and live the American Dream. The various ends that "science" has been employed as a path to are too many to count.

 

Even if it is "meant" to be ongoing, it is used in practice as a means to various ends.

No, when science is applied to a goal, it aids in achieving said goal, but science as a general concept is continually improving through testing and falsifying ideas.

 

 

59 minutes ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

Maybe there is some being somewhere that/who just wants to, non-stop, take measurements, write equations, make observations, conduct experiments, build and refine models, etc. with no end in sight. I doubt that if such a being exists any of us humans would recognize it as another human being. The overwhelming majority of people who support science are humans with values, dreams, goals, agendas, projects, etc. That is a good thing. Science would probably die pretty quickly if it was done with no end in sight and only for its own sake. Science would not have the financial, political, emotional or other support that has helped it progress if it was insisted that it has nothing to do with anybody's needs or wants.

Those beings are Scientists.

 

 

1 hour ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

Basically, you are saying that science is some super-human exercise of pure objectivity. That completely distorts what objectivity is and why we value it. We want reliable results to meet our needs and wants, not to be epistemological purists.

 

Purism, no matter if you are talking about literature, baseball, or something in between, has a negative connotation. That is for good reason. Purism makes one completely miss the point of an endeavor.

Science only works because steps are taken to be objective.

 

 

1 hour ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

I think that that is also where scientism goes wrong. It obsesses so much with things like the boundaries between science and pseudo-science that the real value of science is obscured.

 

Maybe I am a lone wolf, but I could not care less about things like pinpointing science versus pseudo-science or adhering to what science is "meant" to be. I am a pragmatist who will take knowledge, information, wisdom, etc. however we can get it.

 

However, most likely I am not a lone wolf--I am not "speaking for myself".

Pseudoscience is harmful because you can't gain knowledge by accepting falsehoods.

 

 

1 hour ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

Science is whatever the people with the power to influence such things--politicians, wealthy people, high-ranking education administrators, philosophers, and, yes, people who are practicing science--decide it is at the moment. There is no universal definition of science. Right now people can get away with calling the academic discipline of Economics a science. Ten years from now it may be officially policy that Economics is not and cannot be science.

 

What is or is not "science"--and why it is or is not "science"--is arbitrary.

Just because there are people who will call something Science despite the definition, doesn't mean there is no definition of Science.

 

From the Cambridge Dictionary:

Quote

 

Science noun

(knowledge from) the careful study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, especially by watching, measuring, and doing experiments, and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities

 

 

1 hour ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

I already said what I mean by "science" in this thread: whatever is presently considered "science" in the modern university. So that includes cognitive science, cultural anthropology, human geography, linguistics, etc. as well as biology, chemistry, geology and physics.

And yet you've argued that science is undefinable.

 

 

1 hour ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

No matter what is and is not "science", a philosophical problem remains: how is it possible that a person can know all of it and be successful at it while at the same time considering all of it to be bogus?

 

Maybe if science is the apex of human knowledge and understanding and it can conceivably be considered bogus even by those who excel at it then all knowledge and understanding is ultimately meaningless.

Not a problem. Science doesn't exist to provide meaning.

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

2 hours ago, LeChat said:

Oh, now I think I understand what you mean. Yes, sometimes, politics are inserted in science (not necessarily by scientists), but that doesn't mean that all scientists agree with that. For example, after Alabama meteorologists tweeted to let Alabama residents know that they weren't in danger of a hurricane (even though the president tweeted that Alabama was in the path), the head of NOAA told all their staff to not contradict the president (which staff weren't happy about).

 

Well, apparently, others found out that the head of NOAA campaigned for Trump. The president does have the ability to nominate certain people to run departments, which, yes, is dangerous when it's done more for political reasons than regarding a job/for facts, etc.

 

https://oceanleadership.org/trump-taps-accuweather-ceo-head-noaa-breaking-precedent-nominating-scientists/

 

That is completely irrelevant.

 

I brought up a philosophical issue about knowledge, practical success, and personal attitude. It could be asked about almost any endeavor. It could be asked how it is that a basketball coach who has never used a zone defense could learn from another coach all of the details and larger principles of the zone defense, use it successfully to win games, and the whole time think that it is a bunch of nonsense.

 

But nobody thinks that the zone defense in basketball is anything exceptional.

 

Science is different. It is repeatedly pounded into our heads from the moment we are born that science is an exceptional human endeavor.

 

However, one could conceivably know as much science as anybody else, be as successful at science as anybody else, and the whole time think that it is all bogus. How is this possible with something so exceptional?

 

More importantly, what does it tell us about science?

 

I have offered a few possible answers:

 

1.) It shows that science, like all social behavior, is a big acting job.

 

2.) It makes science the path to seeing the ultimate meaningless of all knowledge.

 

This whole business of the definition of science is a tangent that does almost nothing to address the issue at hand.

 

The fact that science gets politicized would be another tangent. Let's please not go on another tangent.

[Ace of Mind]

6 minutes ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

Science is different. It is repeatedly pounded into our heads from the moment we are born that science is an exceptional human endeavor.

 

However, one could conceivably know as much science as anybody else, be as successful at science as anybody else, and the whole time think that it is all bogus. How is this possible with something so exceptional?

First, what heads is this being pounded into? and by whom? Was this pounded into your head? It certainly wasn't pounded into mine, and I doubt that much of your audience here holds this view either.

 

Second, it is possible that are attempting to approach this using particular philosophical views or principles that nobody else here agrees with or, more likely, is not even aware of them at all.  I myself see human disbelieve as an internal mental endeavor that cannot be explicitly prevented by any mechanism, and thus regard it as a totally unrelated qualifier for judging whether anything is exceptional. 

[LeChat]

6 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

...Science is whatever the people with the power to influence such things--politicians, wealthy people, high-ranking education administrators, philosophers, and, yes, people who are practicing science--decide it is at the moment. There is no universal definition of science. Right now people can get away with calling the academic discipline of Economics a science. Ten years from now it may be officially policy that Economics is not and cannot be science.

 

What is or is not "science"--and why it is or is not "science"--is arbitrary.

 

I already said what I mean by "science" in this thread: whatever is presently considered "science" in the modern university. So that includes cognitive science, cultural anthropology, human geography, linguistics, etc. as well as biology, chemistry, geology and physics...

Well, I'm sorry if you thought my response was irrelevant, but, without being given specific examples, I was trying the best I could at trying to understand where your point of view was coming from. You mentioned all of these different disciplines calling themselves "science" when they're actually all different and not run the same way. Not all scientists have power or influence in the world because hierarchies and corporations exist, too, in those fields you mentioned.

 

I wasn't aware that mentioning politicians trying to influence science and scientists would be considered off-topic; I thought it was on-topic and what you meant because you brought up politicians having "power to influence such things." It's true that the president and other political officials have recently been denouncing science and scientists, purposely causing doubt in the public's eye for political reasons. So, I thought, perhaps, things like that might've had some influence or caused confusion/doubts toward your beliefs about science/scientists, etc.

 

Quote

 

...However, one could conceivably know as much science as anybody else, be as successful at science as anybody else, and the whole time think that it is all bogus...A person could know all of science and practice science and not believe that any of it is true.

 

Therefore, science, however one chooses to define it, is nothing more than a big acting job...I could believe that the stars in the sky are the result of an ancient Greek god regurgitating, yet I could know and successfully practice astronomy.

 

How is the latter possible? Could it be because science, however it is defined, is just a big acting job derived from culture?...

So, do you mean like how some scientists are religious, yet still are scientists, dealing with facts? Just because they're religious, it doesn't cancel out or mean that they don't believe in science.

 

(Here's an example from a few scientists who discuss what their religion and science means to them. That doesn't mean all scientists have the same beliefs or think the same way. Some scientists are atheists.)

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-05-24/three-scientists-talk-about-how-their-faith-fits-with-their-work/9543772

 

I'm not sure what science being "nothing more than a big acting job" means. Just because science is always evolving and changing and there aren't necessarily certainties in the field because new developments are being discovered doesn't mean that science is fake or that people who study/work in scientific fields are acting like they know everything.

 

What I learned about science and scientists in school was that science isn't absolute; it's constantly evolving and changing because scientists research their hypotheses, invent new things, etc.

 

 

[daveb]

3 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

However, one could conceivably know as much science as anybody else, be as successful at science as anybody else, and the whole time think that it is all bogus.

Who are these scientists that think it is all bogus and do it anyways?

 

If anyone can learn the methods and practices and knowledge base of a science (regardless of their personal beliefs), conduct experiments and reach the same results, that doesn't have to mean they are following some "script" and/or are just putting on an act. If someone follows things and gets the same results that means the experiment is repeatable and is at the core of science and discovering truths and laws. It would be much good if it couldn't be repeated. And if they get different results people work to find out why - it might turn out something was different or done wrong or that there is more to it than initially thought. Part of science is testing ideas and part of that means trying to show how they might be wrong or flawed.

 

Let's say I drop something and it falls to the ground; then someone else drops something and it also falls to the ground. That wouldn't be surprising, and would happen regardless of personal beliefs. That's gravity. Then say another person drops something, but it floats up. If someone "drops" the same sort of thing and it also floats up, then they might guess that gravity doesn't always happen and wonder why. They might find ways to test if others things will also float, try to find out what is different between things that fall and things that float, and find ways to test those different ideas. Eventually people will figure out some things fall and some things float and why that is so, and some day someone might make a flying machine (or "balloon"), for example. They didn't necessarily start with the goal of making a flying machine or any other goal other than satisfying curiosity; they didn't reach the ideas and flying machine by following some script or by performing an "act" like a play or ritual with no factual basis. They discovered things that were consistent enough and repeatable enough to be considered close enough to being true that they could be utilized in predictable ways to produce a desired outcome. But even if they never designed or built a flying machine it would still be science.

[Homer]

On 11/7/2019 at 5:51 AM, SithGirl said:

Omg, he's trying to start a definition debate you guys! Words don't mean anything! Everything is a social construct! You see and apple but learn to call it a banana and everyone else calls it a banana so you have no way of knowing it's actually an apple! The cake is a lie! 

...but it's still totally valid

 

The other day I saw a video on YT. Some flat earth believer conducted an experiment (as in, an actual experiment with a correct setup) and guess what, they determined that this planet is in fact not flat. I can go look for the link when I'm back on my laptop.

 

Technically... yeah, one could be a successful scientist without believing any of it. Not sure why anyone would devote their life to it though. I think that religion is bogus. I could still become a popular pastor or a priest or whatever, even if I think it's bogus... but why on earth would I do that? What's the point?

[Celyn: The Lutening]

This is why science is so good - it doesn't care what you believe, it helps us get closer to the truth without human belief or desire interfering.

 

So yeah, you could do valid science while believing unscientific things, as long as your experimental technique was well done, like the above flat-earther.

[timewarp]

3 hours ago, Homer said:

The other day I saw a video on YT. Some flat earth believer conducted an experiment (as in, an actual experiment with a correct setup) and guess what, they determined that this planet is in fact not flat. I can go look for the link when I'm back on my laptop.

And this is why the first year of a PhD is mostly dedicated to a thorough literature review. So you don't have to start from scratch.

[timewarp]

3 hours ago, daveb said:

If anyone can learn the methods and practices and knowledge base of a science (regardless of their personal beliefs), conduct experiments and reach the same results, that doesn't have to mean they are following some "script" and/or are just putting on an act. If someone follows things and gets the same results that means the experiment is repeatable and is at the core of science and discovering truths and laws. It would be much good if it couldn't be repeated. And if they get different results people work to find out why - it might turn out something was different or done wrong or that there is more to it than initially thought. Part of science is testing ideas and part of that means trying to show how they might be wrong or flawed.

This reminds me of this exciting discovery someone in my former research group made about the ozone hole. In the end it turned out it was an issue with the entrance optics. And here is something really important - believing is really not awfully good when you're after a correct interpretation of your results. You need to be open to everything that could realistically explain your results. In most cases it boils down to technical aspects and uncertainties (typically of either experimental or numerical nature). Valid new discoveries are rare and are the result of extremely hard work.

 

Of course this is easy to forget, because scientists usually don't publish their failures. They only publish what they and the reviewers chosen by the journal editor consider a success. In some cases it is flawed, but then again our current way of doing things is quite successful. Other scientists may or may not see the flaws, challenge them and discuss them.

[PoeciMeta]

12 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

However, one could conceivably know as much science as anybody else, be as successful at science as anybody else, and the whole time think that it is all bogus. How is this possible with something so exceptional?

 

More importantly, what does it tell us about science?

1) No one said science was exceptional. 

 

2) It does certainly tell us something about the person. If someone who is trained to acquire formal proof from available data through systematic methods, doesn't believe in their own formal proof, then they must be an incredible skeptic. 

 

3) It tells us that science doesn't depend on your beliefs, or on culture, and is thus more objective than things that do (e.g. two countries having somewhat different versions of the same war... but unless you made a mistake somewhere, from the same axioms, you can't get two different versions of math.) 

 

4) Why are you trying to apply philosophy to science anyway? 

 

Also:

[Sorry, can't add a quote by editing ^^'] 

👇

[PoeciMeta]

15 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

There is no universal thing called "science". Everything called "science" has been something constructed culturally. What is or is not "science"; what the word does or does not refer to; etc. varies from time to time, place to place, person to person. 

You're talking about linguistics. Of course, every word is socially constructed. However, you cannot argue about something you don't define. Concepts must be identified before they can be manipulated - and I learnt that in philosophy class, not science class. Science class kind of took that principle for granted. 

 

Quote

Even if it is "meant" to be ongoing, it is used in practice as a means to various ends.

Yes!! Not only does it provide truths, albeit not universal, that help us understand the world we're in, we can use these truths to make cool stuff, too! Like a phone! Isn't it awesome that learning about how matter and energy behave can be used to build something like a phone?! 

 

Quote

Maybe there is some being somewhere that/who just wants to, non-stop, take measurements, write equations, make observations, conduct experiments, build and refine models, etc. with no end in sight. I doubt that if such a being exists any of us humans would recognize it as another human being. 

>.>

<.<

*Raises hand tentatively*

 

Quote

Basically, you are saying that science is some super-human exercise of pure objectivity. 

No. Science acknowledges its bias and its human origin. 

 

Quote

What is or is not "science"--and why it is or is not "science"--is arbitrary.

No, it isn't. Unless you can prove it? Be careful not to use deduction, it's scientifical. 

 

Quote

Maybe if science is the apex of human knowledge and understanding and it can conceivably be considered bogus even by those who excel at it then all knowledge and understanding is ultimately meaningless.

Facts don't have a meaning. Facts are facts. 

[LeChat]

On 11/6/2019 at 11:25 PM, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

...The definition given in a book I have been reading, Why I Am Not a Scientist: An Anthropology of Modern Knowledge, by Jonathan Marks?

I'm curious about where or from whom you got all these ideas from. So, is all this from the author of the book?

 

I haven't read the book, but the author's bio mentions that they're a professor of anthropology at a university and one reviewer who liked the book also said the author's theories have biases and faults, too. So, even the author isn't automatically an authority on this subject; each scientist in different fields has their own ideas and beliefs.

[uhtred]

There are two different things.  When you do science yourself, if you believe your senses, then you sort of have to believe the results.  If you see how fast a weight on a string swings, or how high the sun is at noon each day, etc etc, and see how those match predictions, you are doing science.   I've been casually watching Jupiter slowly move across the night sky and comparing to a little mechanical planetarium I have. That is science .

 

The other part of science is believing the experiments *others* have done.  That is much trickier because its always possible to believe in some vast conspiracy to hide the truth.  But if you,and lots of other people do little casual experiments, that actually helps a lot in assuring that there is no vast conspiracy.  As you learn more about science you find that it would take an insane number of people to join a conspiracy to make any of the major findings false.  

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

On 11/6/2019 at 9:10 PM, Yeast said:

People believe what they perceive to be the truth.

 

Is any statement purely true or false?

 

Or do people base belief on the probability of a statement, as they understand the statement, being true or false?

 

I believe that this statement is true: "Columbus is the capital of Ohio".

 

However, there are assumptions involved. I am assuming that the statement means "At this second Columbus is the capital of Ohio". I am assuming that it is impossible for the truth of the statement to change in less than a second. The location of a sub-atomic particle probably could change in less than a second, but the location of U.S. state capitals cannot change in less than a second. Etc.

 

Therefore, what believing the statement to be true really means is that one thinks that it is highly probably that the statement is very close to being true.

 

 

On 11/6/2019 at 9:10 PM, Yeast said:

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.

 

 

Theories are models of reality.

 

One can produce tons of theories and the whole time believe that none of them reflect reality. One could know every detail of every theory that has not yet been "disproved" and believe that none of them reflect reality.

 

It is easy to see how it could all just be a big acting job.

 

 

On 11/6/2019 at 9:10 PM, 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. 

 

 

I could believe that science is all bogus and tells us nothing about reality and at the same time go through all the motions involved in knowing, understanding, practicing and advancing in science.

 

The difference is that nobody claims that "religion" is exceptional as a path to knowing and understanding reality.

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

On 11/9/2019 at 11:31 AM, LeChat said:

I'm curious about where or from whom you got all these ideas from. So, is all this from the author of the book?

 

I haven't read the book, but the author's bio mentions that they're a professor of anthropology at a university and one reviewer who liked the book also said the author's theories have biases and faults, too. So, even the author isn't automatically an authority on this subject; each scientist in different fields has their own ideas and beliefs.

 

 

I have not said that I am getting all of my information from a book, let alone one particular book.

 

I simply pointed out that the definition of science that Marks arrives at, as I recall, clashes with what people here are saying is the definition of science.

[daveb]

1 hour ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

The difference is that nobody claims that "religion" is exceptional as a path to knowing and understanding reality.

Au contraire. I think lots of people have claimed that throughout history and in the present.

[Ace of Mind]

3 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

It is easy to see how it could all just be a big acting job

I keep seeing this statement here but it's really not easy, I still don't fully know what this statement is even supposed to mean. 

[PoeciMeta]

15 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

Is any statement purely true or false?

 

Or do people base belief on the probability of a statement, as they understand the statement, being true or false?

 

I believe that this statement is true: "Columbus is the capital of Ohio".

 

However, there are assumptions involved. I am assuming that the statement means "At this second Columbus is the capital of Ohio". I am assuming that it is impossible for the truth of the statement to change in less than a second. The location of a sub-atomic particle probably could change in less than a second, but the location of U.S. state capitals cannot change in less than a second. Etc.

 

Therefore, what believing the statement to be true really means is that one thinks that it is highly probably that the statement is very close to being true.

Yeah? I agree... so? Science takes such probabilities into account. When they can't prove, they go with the most likely model. 

 

Quote

Theories are models of reality.

 

One can produce tons of theories and the whole time believe that none of them reflect reality. One could know every detail of every theory that has not yet been "disproved" and believe that none of them reflect reality.

 

It is easy to see how it could all just be a big acting job.

Why would they? Why the hell would someone do something they believe is utterly false or meaningless? What is that person's problem?? 

 

Also you never fully explained what you meant by ''acting job''. Please define that. 

 

Quote

I could believe that science is all bogus and tells us nothing about reality and at the same time go through all the motions involved in knowing, understanding, practicing and advancing in science.

 

The difference is that nobody claims that "religion" is exceptional as a path to knowing and understanding reality.

Again, why??? 

 

And no, there are many people who think religion is more ''meaningful'' than science, whatever that means. 

[Homer]

9 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

Is any statement purely true or false?

Yes. Sports results are a good example. Let's make up a result for fun. Warriors at Knicks 104-95. 

 

Statement: Knicks lost.

Statement: Warriors won.

 

Both purely true.

[timewarp]

1 hour ago, Homer said:

Yes. Sports results are a good example. Let's make up a result for fun. Warriors at Knicks 104-95. 

 

Statement: Knicks lost.

Statement: Warriors won.

 

Both purely true.

Unless they were playing crazy golf.

[Homer]

34 minutes ago, timewarp said:

Unless they were playing crazy golf.

Well, no clubs and look where they put the targets... it kind of is crazy golf.

[PoeciMeta]

Tautologies are a thing too. If you look into logic (and by that I mean mathematical logic), provided axioms, there are ''real'' truths and falsehoods. 

[Abîme]

No, it isn’t an act, because the results won’t depend on who’s hands they lie in. 
You shouldn’t believe a scientist. You should believe their science. 

It’s a great thing that you can practice science without believing all of it. 
You can practice medicine believing in a geocentric model of the universe, or astronomy, not believing in evolution.  
To go further, especially for physics, you can go on not believing I the existence of any of the defined things, and seeing physics as a mathematical model for how the universe works - something that will predict but never explain your findings. 
You might even have two models that come to the same conclusions but are fundamentally different. 

You needn’t believe such a thing as a force exists to be able to use it mathematically to explain more complex phenomena. 
 

Believe the science, not the scientist, and it stops being such an acting game.