Science isn’t an ontology, it’s a method.
God, what no humanities does to a mf
Reminded me of this.
And a method in which beliefs are important. Not the religious ones, of course, but there are other kinds of beliefs.
Exactly. I keep trying to get people to understand that it’s a process, just like running is a process.
Believing that science yields universally true results or is the only method of finding truths, however, is an ontology and something you have to believe.
Edit: I’m not anti-science or anything, just a pedant.
Believing that science yields universally true results or is the only method of finding truths
You just described science as though it were a belief system. In reality, science has a presumption that your ideals are false, not true. And a person who could only discover truth through science wouldn’t be able to dress or feed themselves.
I agree with the second part of that sentence, but who would think that they discover universal truths or any truths at all? The whole premise of science is that we cannot verify anything or find any real truth. We can just show that anything else is much more unlikely to be true.
Here is a video by the channel Dr. Fatima (former astrophysicist) which I think has some intersection with this topic. I may have picked the wrong video though because I haven’t watched it in months.
Scientism is the belief that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.
While the term was defined originally to mean “methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to natural scientists”, some scholars, as well as political and religious leaders, have also adopted it as a pejorative term with the meaning “an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)”.
“facts don’t care about your feelings” energy
deleted by creator
explain the problem: irrational criticism & fallacies aren’t scientific
deleted by creator
I don’t believe I have ever had an interaction with you that was not the most annoying part of my day
Cool: consequence of your outputting irrational comments. I’m still debunking them.
I’m pretty confident that you already know exactly what I was getting at
Your propagation of the misinformed confusion of unrelated concepts?
problem?
seems like you’re drawing on a guilt by association fallacy
Is there anyone out there who hates Ben Shapiro and the temperamental cranks who act like their subjective appeals to emotion & outrage have anywhere as much merit as valid, objective arguments that take actual effort? The latter is tiresome, and they absolutely deserve Ben’s catchphrase: everyone should be appropriating it to nobler causes than Ben’s to annoy him & criticize those irrational twerps.
Actually, “science” is a human activity and must care about what you think. It’s the universe that doesn’t care about either.
Haha science takes more faith to believe in than my religion.
- Sent from my iPhone
/s
Is “Neither do I” written on the bottom?
This feels very 2011
I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE
Hypothesis?
science doesn’t care about your feelings.
I irony being anyone who owns such mug does give a fuck what you believe.
yeah, about that…yer funding…it comes in part from some of those anti-science folk… :/
Everything goes through our brains and therefore filters and interpretations. Science doesn’t happen if grants are approved and that usually means someone has something to gain. Even then, results are skewed by method and biases.
Science very much does care about our feelings, both individual and collective, every step of the way. That’s why there needs to be special care to take them out as much as possible.
Plus, statistics make up the basis of pretty much all of our science. If you dig into the foundations of stats, you’ll find that it’s basically just formalizing our feelings. It just happens to be formalized in a way that appears to reflect reality accurately enough to be useful.
This post would be greater with accessibility.
When I pointed this out to a very popular influencer last week I got doxxed by them. Luckily after a week of people trying to fuck with my account they deleted the message.
I want this mug
deleted by creator
If we look at the way the universe behaves, quantum mechanics gives us fundamental, unavoidable indeterminacy, so that alternative histories of the universe can be assigned probability.
- Murray Gell-Mann
“it posits that the universe functions according to predictable rules”
- you
Not quite. Cosmologists accept a certain distribution of predictable phenomena within known parameters while leaving the door open to chaos, outliers, the as of yet unknown and unknowable.
Complexity theory is a model that posits components interact in multiple ways and behave according to local rules. From quantum physics to cosmology and the aspirational yet elusive grand theory of everything, science is prepared for a world weirder than we understand, and possibly weirder than we can understand.
Just because empirical evidence and the development of predictable rules are a very fruitful line of inquiry doesn’t mean we believe that is truth.
Philosophers of Science have rather lengthy volumes of work on the subject. I’m just a novice on the topic, but my take on the state of the subject is that we don’t accept science and even it’s laws as absolute truth, just a very practical, reliable, utilitarian form of inquiry and understanding which includes uncertainty (Heisenberg), probability, complexity and chaos. Scientists are prepared to abandon everything in exchange for something better.
Look at newtonian physics. No one thinks it’s the truth, it’s just simpler and useful for everyday engineering.
we define “science” as the aggregate consciousness of scientific researchers
This is something I wish I could preach convincingly to everyone. The activity of scientists, a social group, are arguing and trying to convince one another that their interpretation of the data acquired by using their tools and methods is what become a scientific consensus.
Forefronting the method (often a vaguely defined one rooted in a hypo-deductive model from about 150 years ago that most people learned in grade school) removes the relationships between people and other people and people and institutions.
I wish I could find the paper but there’s a wonderful enthographic study on how scientists interact with each other to transform the discourse.
Edit: Found it! Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry by Helen E. Longino
Science is knowledge discovered through the scientific process. Knowledge isn’t belief.
