How reliable is science? (Assumption 7/7) (The limitations of science)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, April 23, 2012, 23:38 (4595 days ago) @ dhw

MATT: As has been made apparent to me from Tony and yourself in your response here...
> I'm missing the point of your criticism. Technically, I'm college-educated and am equipped with the skills to be able to carefully weigh a "scientific" argument vs. one made from thin air, yet still logical. 
> 
> The discussion has branched out from my starting-point. Tony and David have launched a concerted attack on the corruption now rife in the scientific world, as it is in so many of our human institutions. My approach is an epistemological one, based on the fact that for whatever reasons, we cannot trust the accuracy of the scientific information underlying our quest for the truth about our origins. Earlier you thought I was dismissing technology, whereas I was trying to make it clear that technology is different because its accuracy can be verified by its practical results. Theories relating to our origins cannot be verified, and scientific pronouncements must remain suspect. Tomorrow may reverse the findings of today, and tomorrows will continue from day to day "to the last syllable of recorded time".
> -I think we've switched chairs!-Ultimately where I wanted to move in the original epistemology thread, was into A direction of "common sense," just not quite the level you were looking for. -It's a given: we don't know, what we don't know. But science itself gives us a way out of that trap: the very fact that you note science's changing nature is *exactly* why it should dominate as the primary means of investigating our universe. Look what happened when I caught panentheism in its logical trap: David shut down. He didn't want to engage anymore. In fact, he deliberately asked I stop talking about it. (And if you read this David, again, panentheism is false by definition. You're a pantheist.) -There can be no movement or advancement when such things arise in discussions! At the end of the day, you need to be able to decide which explanation is better than another, and the only way to do that is to make assertions and test to see if your conclusions are correct.-From reading this, I sense you've hit upon Nietzsche's idea of "nihilism" and don't like the abyss you see. No, we don't technically know if science is "right" but it sure is "right enough." -When it comes to discussions like origins, science doesn't lie: It says we don't know. Truth-preservation is its ultimate goal, even though we do not claim science IS truth. Science gives us the BEST explanation that we can find reliable. In Giorbran's book, he's finally starting to advance his argument, and he discusses the Copenhagen version of Quantum physics. He states (paraph) "The copenhagen interpretation is extremely bare bones... barely even an interpretation. Only just enough to make it work, and to allow us to use it."-I peeked at the table of contents, and it actually looks like Giorbran is going to make a theistic argument down the road, but I care not about that. -
> MATT: The disconnect between the ivory tower and "the common man" is going to grow exponentially, and not even because of a deliberate effort. Statistically speaking, a human being absorbs more information in a year than a person in the 18th century would have access to in their lifetime.
> 
> I'm sure you're right. But in the context of our discussions, the layman needs to be aware of the gap ... sometimes huge ... between the information (in itself suspect) and the conclusions drawn from it. If a renowned scientist claims that "natural selection explains the whole of life", you and I know enough to dismiss the claim as arrant and arrogant nonsense, but kids in the classroom probably won't, and his devout followers probably won't either. Some scientists have assumed an authority they do not have, and the view that science alone can provide us with "truth" ... again, I'm talking about particular areas of our existence ... is one that I find increasingly irksome and unscientifically subjective. For all its truly astonishing achievements, science does not support materialism; materialism is the basis of science.-I don't know how they do things in Europe, but here in the states, I learned about this gap in high school. Mainly through reading books about philosophy. If nothing else, we can blame this problem you see not on science, but on the lack of basic philosophic training... but of course, philosophy doesn't pay, right? (And what else do we go to school for?)-The issue is that by nature we like fast explanations, even when we claim to be scientific. -I might poke you and say that "Natural Selection explains the whole of life, as far as we can tell." -Because generally speaking, it fits extremely well with economics.-There's holes, but we might never fill those holes.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"