Skip to comments.Should We “Stop Equating ‘Science’ With Truth”?
Posted on 08/12/2017 12:48:03 PM PDT by MtnClimber
click here to read article
I wonder why you wonder...
Yes, the scientific method, for a variety of reasons, sometimes produces results that are incorrect. More often, results may not be confirmable (indicating, perhaps, the presence of “unknown unknown” factors), or the results may be marginal or unclear.
All of this should make everyone cautious about committing too much obedience to “science,” but it doesn’t seem to.
I don’t often see a scientific field associated with an established religion
It’s unusual to see a religion tied into a particular field of science. What have Buddhists to do with quantum mechanics?
Even as an engineer, I never equated science with truth.
To me, truth is associated with wisdom.
I’d say there is no truth in science, however, there is logic, which involves concepts like true/false, correct/incorrect.
That a big diff. This is why science has never threatened any concept I have of faith or religion.
You can coopt humans and human institutions with a political agenda, including scientists and scientific organizations (cf. the National Academy of Science).
But science itself is a philosophy with the aim of explaining the natural world based upon repeatable observation of phenomenon. That the agenda of say the National Academy of Sciences has been coopted by a political agenda can be demonstrated scientifically by examining the behavior of its membership, and the politically biased outcomes of its studies to accord with the political agenda of say the reigning democratic party.
Science may be truth as we know it, but not the way science is practiced today.
Scientist thought that they had things nailed 100 years ago. Then, they found out that they didn’t.
At least they were “scientific” enough to admit it.
All truth is relative. Except environmental science is not relative. It is settled in favor of human destruction of the planet. Homocentric pollution is true because the alternative is false. All idea promulgated by conservatives, patriots, Republicans, Cristians, or other rednecks are false because leftist ideas are true. This is the foundation of liberal reason.
Would a scientist describe things in absolute terms? I don’t think so. Yet that is what we hear about AGW.
Nature is never perfect nor absolute. Especially when we very feebly attempt to describe it and go one step further and model it.
Example: modeling the Earth’s climate.
Oh man... There are a lot of connections, especially with some of the earliest religions discovered and there is not a thing wrong with the concept at all. There is a problem with how the concept was practiced with a few of them, But Buddhism was never one of the bad ones and deserves a right to be respected with tolerance if you are a TRUE Christian. Buddhism is not a Religion it is an education.
Look up Pantheism and it will explain the general concept and make the connection with proven Quantum particle physics. It makes a very viable connection with Science and Religion. A Christian should never rule out the possibility that their God created all these particles as they are now proven in quantum physics.
I am now a Pantheist myself. Unfortunately the leftists have hijacked the label and tried to turn it into some “utopian” idea. Which is wrong and they have no right to associate it with Utopian ideals because they do not apply.
Thank you for that!!
It is amazing how many people here don’t understand that — and don’t want to!
Note AGW does NOT fit anywhere in that diagram. And TToE does.
>>I wonder about the logic that leads to that conclusion.<<
I think that makes you a Buddhist also. Or a Heisenbergist?
“Buddhism is not a Religion it is an education.”
It’s a way of living your life. It’s easy to understand and provides a solid blueprint for how to live day-by-day
In my statistics class for Engineers and Scientists the instructor, on the first day of class, said, figures lie, and liars figure. In this class we will learn how to determine lies and who the liars are.
Absolutely. I agree with this completely. And Buddhism does not find and create hatred for those who are different than them like most other religions. Buddhism has peacefully embraced and exercised tolerance for other religions for thousands of years now without judgment.
Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism are to be highly respected in this aspect.
If science is truth,
then hunting is a deer.
In the PC age this point might be moot,
but hungry they stay who skip the Pursuit.
The Scientific Method is a useful tool, but a terrible master.
As Spock said of the computer (M-5), I have no wish to serve it.
I was a science major, and received awards. It is precisely for that reason that I am not awed by “science”: It is used by fallible, finite human beings with agendas.
I quote myself: “Science requires objectivity, but does not guarantee it.”
Just by what you choose to test, you are skewing the results, no matter how well the experiment is designed.
Leftist media decide what news will be covered and how. Leftist scientists decide what will be studied and how.
Distrust and verify.
Nice analysis there, Warrior. I enjoyed reading it.
I think it would be helpful for scientists to fess up to the statistically shaky ground of their predictions and “laws”.
Engineering, an applied science, is far more solid. Astronomy, anthropology, and long range climate prediction are far more prone to error and black swans — by untold orders of magnitude. Yet the people in those scientific pursuits do not acknowledge the leaps of faith made in these fields. Instead they hide the dirty truth from the public to keep their departments funded.
Weather forecasting is important, but prediction is very poor today. I did a little ad hoc study of predictions of North American hurricanes made by the NOAA and the University of Colorado. I discovered that 2 months before the start of the season, the scientists cannot reliably tell you how many hurricanes will occur. The average error rate is plus or minus 20%. And some years in the past 30, they were off by more than 100%.
Then there are the out and out charlatans. Stephen Hawking is the perfect example of a fraud posing as a scientist, though he’s clearly an expert at “hawking” his books and making people believe he’s a genius.
When I picked up a book he wrote for the layman, it was totally unintelligible. But how can you criticize him? He’s been given all sorts of awards. And he’s totally crippled. Don’t you know that blind and crippled people are savants?
Bottom line. The scientific professions need to totally flush out their charlatans. Some professions need to pack their bag and honestly admit they are occult sciences.
What can the public do to restore science to its proper, non-political role? Removing government subsidies and more privatization, I think.
Weather forecasting should be totally privatized. Let the insurance companies pay top dollar for breakthroughs in weather prediction. Probably some breakthroughs would be made. Competition brings out true innovation.
Are you kidding me?
I’m just an objective observer and I’m not inclined to justify the illogical state of affairs.
It’s just what I see happening.
You can read or watch any number of these seemingly intelligent and educated thought leaders of today or dig deep into the works of philosophers that have addressed all of this before.
You may want to start with Joseph Campbell. Hands down he was the most preeminent authority on Mythology/Religion for those seeking an alternative to Christianity. A Buddhist that led me to Christ.
Dr. Fred Alan Wolf is another well published nut job, but very influential.
You could also read/watch Prof. William Provine (Cornell University) and his rantings on Natural Law and his rejection of free will.
There are soo many more.
Richard Dawkins, (he may be coming around)
Christopher Hitchens (RIP)
On the right side of the debate for truth;
William Lane Craig
Phillip E. Johnson
David Berlinski, one of my personal favorites.
The co-opted Science of the left is more about feelings than facts.
They are trying to convince us that feelings are facts.
It may seen a bit abstract, however, when/if you consider the desperate nature of those that are doing everything they can to reject objective truth in order to feel accepted and avoid having to have any foundation for their beliefs, it seems natural for them to “Embrace Uncertainty”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.