Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What is the necessity of science?

12346»

Comments

  • #152
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    Necessary for what?

    Well, as I would put it, confidence in the acceptance or rejection of claims/explanations about reality as being accurate.

    If you think science is necessary for something what do you think that something is yourself?
    PDN wrote: »
    But it is necessary if you want to get a man on the moon.

    What do you think would have happened if we had tried to go to the moon without the scientific methodology.


  • #153
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I'm glad someone actually finally raised that point.

    Do you think science is actually necessary in the first place? I mean you believe God exists and is the Christian God and you didn't use science to establish that. Muslims who say that God wants Shi'a law don't say "and here is the scientific research to support this", but they still seem pretty confident of that statement.

    Is science actually necessary?

    What do you mean by necessary? And as PDN asked: "necessary for what?".


  • #154
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Well, as I would put it, confidence in the acceptance or rejection of claims/explanations about reality as being accurate..

    That would depend on the reality to which you refer.

    If I am asking, "Do I love this woman enough to marry her?" then science will be of little help.

    If I am assessing her claim that she loves me and I can trust her, then science is of little help.

    If I am deciding whether to believe my Dad's claim that he once met Marilyn Munroe then science is of little help there either.

    Yet all of these deal with reality.
    If you think science is necessary for something what do you think that something is yourself?
    Many different things. You want an example? Ok then. If I want to build a space rocket then I think science will be necessary for that.
    What do you think would have happened if we had tried to go to the moon without the scientific methodology
    If you try by flapping your arms then they might get tired.


  • #155
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    That would depend on the reality to which you refer.

    If I am asking, "Do I love this woman enough to marry her?" then science will be of little help.

    That doesn't change its necessity thought, does it?

    If science can't help then you simply cannot be as sure of something as if science could help. After all the world is full of people who believe someone loves them but are wrong or deceived. The world isn't full of people who think the world is flat.

    If your point was that we do the best we can, make do without it, I would agree.
    PDN wrote: »
    Yet all of these deal with reality.
    And all of them are things where you, I imagine, are a lot less confident of the accuracy of the claims that you would be of something that you can scientifically study, correct?
    PDN wrote: »
    Many different things. You want an example? Ok then. If I want to build a space rocket then I think science will be necessary for that.
    Yes but why is it necessary for space flight, what happens if you try space fight without it?

    Isn't it simply that it has to work, there are tangible consequences of your being inaccurate, where as if you believe your wife loves you and she really doesn't there feedback until she walks out on you? The accuracy of the claim "My wife loves me" is much less established than the accuracy of "This rocket will produce lift" simply because you test the rocket.


  • #156
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    It has already been suggested that science isn't necessary in and of itself. It is not necessary for existence like food and water. While it might be good at figuring out things like space flight, it's not so good when it comes to things like moral questions.

    Why is this thread on it's 11th page? Do you actually have a point, WK?


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    That doesn't change its necessity thought, does it?

    I'm not familiar with the term 'necessity thought'. Could you clarify what you are asking please?
    If science can't help then you simply cannot be as sure of something as if science could help. After all the world is full of people who believe someone loves them but are wrong or deceived. The world isn't full of people who think the world is flat.
    The world was once full of people who understood time and gravity as constants.

    However, you are massively missing the point. We are not arguing about whether we are more certain of one kind of reality than another.

    The point is that there are areas of reality where science cannot help us. And there are others where it can.
    If your point was that we do the best we can, make do without it, I would agree.
    Your wording is somewhat unclear once more. But if I understand you correctly you are acknowledging that there are some areas of reality where science gives us no data, so we do the best we can with other methods. Yes?
    And all of them are things where you, I imagine, are a lot less confident of the accuracy of the claims that you would be of something that you can scientifically study, correct?
    No, not necessarily. I would have more confidence in the fact that my wife loves me than I would, for example, have in many claims that I hear made about string theory.
    Yes but why is it necessary for space flight, what happens if you try space fight without it?
    I'm getting rather tired of pointless questions like this. It is necessary for space flight because space flight involves the manipulation of physical phenomena which fall within the parameters of scientific knowledge.
    Isn't that though just because it has to work, where as if you believe your wife loves you and she really doesn't there is no issue until she walks out on you?
    Er, no. It's because the physical phenomena that pertain to space travel are suitable for scientific study, whereas love isn't.
    Where as if you took the same attitude with space travel you probably wouldn't even get off the ground?
    And if I applied the same attitude as I take to space travel to my marriage, then my marriage wouldn't have got off the ground either.


  • #158
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    It has already been suggested that science isn't necessary in and of itself. It is not necessary for existence like food and water. While it might be good at figuring out things like space flight, it's not so good when it comes to things like moral questions.

    Why is this thread on it's 11th page? Do you actually have a point, WK?

    Are you getting a sense of deja vu as well? :)


  • #159
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    PDN wrote: »
    Are you getting a sense of deja vu as well? :)

    Alas, yes! While somebody might think that our position is utter tosh (and maybe it is) I don't see why questions are still flowing. I would have though that the crux of our position is rather simple.

    *While science might be a wildly successful endeavour, it isn't necessary.
    *Science can be spectacularly good at figuring out things about natural phenomena.
    *There remain questions beyond the ability of science to answer. These are they type of "why?" questions (why something rather than nothing?" etc.) that the likes of Atkins and Dawkins think are wholly silly, which I happen to think that this is an embarrassing position to take.


  • #160
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    While it might be good at figuring out things like space flight, it's not so good when it comes to things like moral questions.

    So people keep saying, why I'm not quite sure.

    Is the question "Does God exist and is he the God as described in the Bible" a moral question?

    If not I'm not really sure why people keep making this point about moral questions?
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Why is this thread on it's 11th page? Do you actually have a point, WK?

    My point is my original question.

    Would you prefer a poster who just told you what they think you believe or should believe, irrespective of whether you believe it or not Fanny? Wouldn't that be the "smug superiority" you were just complaining about on the other thread.

    No one is forcing you or PDN to contribute. If this thread annoys you can simply leave. Others seem to find it more interesting.

    You really are damned if you do and damned if you don't on this forum aren't you :pac:


  • #161
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    I'm not familiar with the term 'necessity thought'. Could you clarify what you are asking please?

    Though, spelling mistake. To clarify, not being able to take advantage of the benefits of science doesn't over come the issues these benefits are designed to counter.

    For example, you don't have a watch so you can't tell exactly what time it is. Instead you look in the sky and give an estimate that it is about 1pm. Not having access to a watch doesn't negate the need to have a watch. You make due.

    Using your example, it would be impractical and probably detrimental to your relationship to try and scientifically study if your wife loves you. So you take a best guess at it, she seems to love you, it fits what you think should if she did love you, so you decide she probably does. That doesn't negate the fact that this belief would not be as support as it would if it was, theoretically possible to assess your wifes love scientifically, any more than judging it is 1pm is as accurate as looking at your watch.

    Would you agree with that?
    PDN wrote: »
    The world was once full of people who understood time and gravity as constants.

    Yes, that is my point. They made due, but that didn't negate the requirement for science which later came along.
    PDN wrote: »
    However, you are massively missing the point. We are not arguing about whether we are more certain of one kind of reality than another.

    The point is that there are areas of reality where science cannot help us. And there are others where it can.

    True but do you agree we don't become any better at assessing the accuracy of claims just because science can't help us in these areas.
    PDN wrote: »
    Your wording is somewhat unclear once more. But if I understand you correctly you are acknowledging that there are some areas of reality where science gives us no data, so we do the best we can with other methods. Yes?
    Yes. But do you agree that the "best we can" is not that good, even if it is the best we can, in the context of confidence in our beliefs. Otherwise what is the point/necessity of science, if not to raise the confidence level in particular claims over others?

    If science as a methodology wasn't much better than these other methods why do we bother with science when we can use it.

    You would agree I assume that any area we can use science we do use science because it produces much more accurate conclusions than when we don't.

    I'm some what putting words in your mouth, which I was trying not to do with this thread but Fanny is getting uppity about the length of this thread. Apologies if I'm mis-representing you, please feel free to clarify.
    PDN wrote: »
    No, not necessarily. I would have more confidence in the fact that my wife loves me than I would, for example, have in many claims that I hear made about string theory.

    So would I but, for me that would be because string theory barely testable at the moment and therefore is barely science.

    A better example would be electromagnetism, something that has been scientifically studied for 150 years. I don't know about you but I would have more confidence in the voltage measurement of a power line than if my gf loved me or not. That isn't to say I wouldn't believe my gf (ex-gf actually, but that is a long story)
    PDN wrote: »
    I'm getting rather tired of pointless questions like this.
    Ok. You know you don't have to answer, right?

    There is a wealth of forum discussions on Boards.ie that I find boring. I simply don't engage in the topics. I don't engage in the topics simply to point out that I find them boring.
    PDN wrote: »
    It is necessary for space flight because space flight involves the manipulation of physical phenomena which fall within the parameters of scientific knowledge.

    In other words, it matters if you get it wrong.
    PDN wrote: »
    Er, no. It's because the physical phenomena that pertain to space travel are suitable for scientific study, whereas love isn't.

    That doesn't make much sense PDN. "Suitable for scientific study" just means it can be studied scientifically. That says nothing as to whether we are justified in being confident in a particular claim, whether that claim is "My wife loves me" or "This rocket will stay in the air"
    PDN wrote: »
    And if I applied the same attitude as I take to space travel to my marriage, then my marriage wouldn't have got off the ground either.

    That may be true, but isn't actually the relevant to the point. You could strap a rocket to your back, something will happen. The question is how confident are you in the claim of what will happen.

    You can by all means take a chance, but that is a wholly different question as to whether you are confident in the outcome.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    So people keep saying, why I'm not quite sure.

    Is the question "Does God exist and is he the God as described in the Bible" a moral question?

    If not I'm not really sure why people keep making this point about moral questions?

    Whether you love someone or not isn't a moral question either. We are making the (rather obvious) point that there are areas of reality where science has little to say.
    My point is my original question.
    Which is it? A point or a question?
    Would you prefer a poster who just told you what they think you believe or should believe, irrespective of whether you believe it or not Fanny? Wouldn't that be the "smug superiority" you were just complaining about on the other thread.
    Actually that is what you do. You repeatedly tell us what we should think yet you fail to provide any coherent or logical basis for why we should do so.

    Let's be clear what's going on here. We aren't posting threads in the A&A Forum telling you what you should think.

    The Christians here have repeatedly stated that we gain knowledge on certain subjects through science, and in areas where science has little or nothing to see we use a different methodology. You, however, seem to want to tell us that we should think like you do.
    No one is forcing you or PDN to contribute. If this thread annoys you can simply leave. Others seem to find it more interesting.
    So, unless we agree with you and think your posting style is wonderful then we should just leave the thread? That is an interesting view.
    You really are damned if you do and damned if you don't on this forum aren't you
    Your damnation is entirely up to you. I wouldn't dream of attempting to interfere with your freedom of choice in that regard.


  • #163
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    In other words, it matters if you get it wrong.

    In other words Arsenal are great?

    You see, I can play that game too. We just type "In other words" and then insert something that suits us but bears no relation to what the other person posted.


  • #164
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    Whether you love someone or not isn't a moral question either. We are making the (rather obvious) point that there are areas of reality where science has little to say.

    Believe me PDN I know that. It seems to be the only point you have made :P

    And I'm making the point that this doesn't negate the issues science attempts to over come.

    Science is a process that attempts to combat difficulties in learning and assessing the accuracies of claims.

    Those difficulties doesn't evaporate because you decide to study something that science can't help you assess. Quite the opposite in fact, the fact that science can't help you means you can't overcome the difficulties.

    I imagine you don't agree with that, but if you don't the original question then is still there, what do you think science does and is this necessary?
    PDN wrote: »
    Which is it? A point or a question?
    The point of the thread is the question. I assume Fanny was asking why does this thread exist. It exists for me to ask the question.
    PDN wrote: »
    Actually that is what you do. You repeatedly tell us what we should think yet you fail to provide any coherent or logical basis for why we should do so.
    When did I tell you what you should think?
    PDN wrote: »
    Let's be clear what's going on here. We aren't posting threads in the A&A Forum telling you what you should think.

    Your posting habits in A&A are really not the topic of this thread.
    PDN wrote: »
    So, unless we agree with you and think your posting style is wonderful then we should just leave the thread? That is an interesting view.

    Well yes PDN.

    As a moderator you should know more than most that if you don't actually want to discuss the topic of a thread but instead want to just making OT comments on a posters posting style (or another forum such as A&A) you shouldn't do in the thread itself.

    PDN wrote: »
    Your damnation is entirely up to you. I wouldn't dream of attempting to interfere with your freedom of choice in that regard.

    It would be nice if that restraint could be extended to not derailing my thread with your own personal gripes.


  • #165
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    In other words Arsenal are great?

    You see, I can play that game too. We just type "In other words" and then insert something that suits us but bears no relation to what the other person posted.

    You can, though I'm not sure what purpose you think that achieves other than further derailing this thread?


  • #166
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    PDN wrote: »
    ...whereas love isn't....

    That is just not true it's called neuroscience, are you seriously suggesting that love is not a physical phenomenon?

    I'm gonna give my two cents on this debate by quoting one of my favourite authors on the art rationality. Here is Eliezer Yudkowski's answer to the question "Is there a conflict between science and religion?" as I think it's relevant here.
    There's no such thing as science.

    "Your ability to watch things fall down, and thereby formulate the Simplified Theory of Gravitation ("things fall down"), is no different, in any way, from the thoughts that let a scientist understand why a star burns. Your ability to drop a rock from your hand, and thereby squash something using the Simplified Theory of Gravitation, is no different from the thoughts that let an engineer create a nuclear submarine."

    http://yudkowsky.net/obsolete/tmol-faq.html#theo_conflict


  • #167
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    You can, though I'm not sure what purpose you think that achieves other than further derailing this thread?

    It points out the pointlessness of answering questions if someone keeps distorting or misrepresenting your answers.
    And I'm making the point that this doesn't negate the issues science attempts to over come.
    Nobody said it does. In fact my point is that we need to consider and assess those areas where science can't overcome issues. The fact that we are therefore forced to rely on other methods of assessing claims does not justify the rather silly question of, "Then why bother with science in the areas where it is obviously useful?"
    Science is a process that attempts to combat difficulties in learning and assessing the accuracies of claims.
    Yes, which is why we use science in the areas where it has the ability to do so.
    Those difficulties doesn't evaporate because you decide to study something that science can't help you assess. Quite the opposite in fact, the fact that science can't help you means you can't overcome the difficulties.
    No, you have just taken a flying leap of logic. Science is not the only way that we overcome difficulties in assessing claims. Historians, for example, frequently have to reach conclusions on non-scientific grounds.

    You appear to be saying that if science can't solve a problem then we should all throw our hands in the air and say we therefore can't reach any conclusions at all.


  • #168
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    That is just not true it's called neuroscience, are you seriously suggesting that love is not a physical phenomenon?

    Yes, I am absolutely suggesting that.

    You are free to hold to outdated notions of determinism. But you should not assume that others do so.


  • #169
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    It points out the pointlessness of answering questions if someone keeps distorting or misrepresenting your answers.

    Well considering that repeatably doing something that you consider pointless is the first sign of madness for your own health I would suggest that if you think any of my questions are pointless you simply don't respond.
    PDN wrote: »
    Nobody said it does. In fact my point is that we need to consider and assess those areas where science can't overcome issues. The fact that we are therefore forced to rely on other methods of assessing claims does not justify the rather silly question of, "Then why bother with science in the areas where it is obviously useful?"

    Do you think these other methods work as was well as science in these areas in regard to the confidence level we get with science?
    PDN wrote: »
    No, you have just taken a flying leap of logic. Science is not the only way that we overcome difficulties in assessing claims.

    Which again brings us back to the original question. If other, older, methods can also over come these problems, why do you think we bother with science?
    PDN wrote: »
    Historians, for example, frequently have to reach conclusions on non-scientific grounds.

    They do, but do you think they consider these conclusion as strong as those reached through science?

    Or is it a case of checking the time without a watch?
    PDN wrote: »
    You appear to be saying that if science can't solve a problem then we should all throw our hands in the air and say we therefore can't reach any conclusions at all.

    We can reach any conclusion we like. The isn't the issue. The issue is the confidence we have in that conclusion.


  • #170
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Wicknight wrote: »
    So people keep saying, why I'm not quite sure.

    Is the question "Does God exist and is he the God as described in the Bible" a moral question?

    That is, first and foremost, a metaphysical question.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    If not I'm not really sure why people keep making this point about moral questions?

    Because people are trying to suggest that science is not always an appropriate tool.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    My point is my original question.

    Then please tell me what you mean by necessity?


  • #171
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    PDN wrote: »
    Yes, I am absolutely suggesting that.

    You are free to hold to outdated notions of determinism. But you should not assume that others do so.

    What the hell are you on about outdated notions? I assume anybody with a modicum of sense understands where emotions come from. For those who don't its called the brain.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    What the hell are you on about outdated notions? I assume anybody with a modicum of sense understands where emotions come from. For those who don't its called the brain.

    There you are, once again your assumptions about what other people believe are hopelessly wrong.


  • #173
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    PDN wrote: »
    There you are, once again your assumptions about what other people believe are hopelessly wrong.

    I'm not going anywhere assuming anything, you just told me what you believe.


  • #174
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    I assume anybody with a modicum of sense understands where emotions come from. For those who don't its called the brain.
    I'm not going anywhere assuming anything

    I think we'll just leave it there.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement