Science

[ARTHANASIOS]

I put no faith in science. Science is just too imperfect to put any actual faith upon.

1st) Science is a "child" of the humanity.
2nd) Humanity is imperfect.
Conclusion: So, science is even more imperfect than humanity.
* Science doesn't know everything, has made mistakes, it always need to evolve and improve, much like humanity. That makes it imperfect. Moreover, science is a creation of humanity, so by worshiping science we have a new type of idolatry; the creator (human) worshiping the creation (science). 

What I believe to? I believe to God due to actual personal choice as well as the laws of the universe, but NOT mere science.

[dark ripper]

Science is a human acomplishment. It is quite extraordinary what people have achieved through science and most of all physics. If we dont include the solution of mysteries like life itself through the Big Bang Theory, science is the prime reason why people have reached the level of life they own today(life spam,medicines etc.) . From the smallest thing like building a consistent house to driving your car to go to work, all those things answer to science. Sure people are not perfect but those theories reached a practical level in the process of human evolution.
We are at a point that science and again first of all physics go beyond our imagination, for crying out loud we are researching the super string theory and the expansion of universe.
 I wont say anything about God as it is not my business to critisize people that actually believe in those stuff, but clearly science has facilitated our everyday lives without the intervention of the divine. Currently, science is in a static place due to the incompetence of people to understand how science is actually working. Whats the percentage of people around the world that actually understand any of it? Decluding billions of people that live in poverty and dont receive any kind of education, in western societes only a few people graduate from universities and do something related to science. Now from those we might say some will reach a decent level of understanding science. So how do we expect people to appreciate something they dont fully get? So education systems should focus more on making people familiar with science, something that definately, with the aid of critical thought, will lead the improvent of societies.

[Hboson]

I'm curious about what does science mean to people. You're free to explain why did you chose it over any "supernatural" interpretation of the world, but I guess there are a few topics out there already with similar confessions. I want to know the reasons for one putting faith in Science, either s/he spares some for 'outside' the material or not.

I'm also curious about how would you define the purpose of science. How does it serve mankind exactly, and if so, where are its limits?

Thought I'd throw my two cents in here.

In your question/explanation you ask about reasons for putting faith in science. I would describe science as being the opposite of faith. Faith is to believe in something with no proof whereas science is the pursuit of proof. The scientific method says to question and test everything, believe nothing without proof. Even when we think we know something, it can often turn out we didn't quite grasp it. Newtons theory of gravity was changed by the creation of the general theory of relativity. So too does the theory of G relativity change. This is the nature of science.

So, science is the antithesis of faith. This is also the same reason why I choose to follow science for possible answers, as opposed to a theology. Maybe science will one day discover a creator. I don't know.

As to its practical uses and benefits, the more we know about the world and how it works the more we can change things for the better. Obviously we humans are fallible, it isn't always for the betterment of us. But the scientific method has given many gifts, from medicine to technology. Science doesn't deliver this alone but it is a vital piece of technological progression with things like math, economics and engineering.

Science is limited in a number of ways. How advanced our technology is, computers and sensors particularly for the abilities to detect and model. It is limited by how far we can see. Given that space is  vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big, we will probably never get to see most of it up close. It's limited by the physical limitations of our universe itself. Black holes are thought (theory) to bend spacetime to such an extent that the laws of physics break down. There is a reasonably high likelihood that we would not be able to measure the interior because anything we send would not just be destroyed, but would also have no way to send data out either. So that is a possible physical limitation to science. We are also limited by ourselves. How willing are people to accept new ideas. Economics, how we decide to spend our economic output.
The thing about science is that because it is not the basis of a faith based belief mechanism, these limitations are acknowledged and accepted. The unknowns are the point of having science. To me that is also honest which is why I prefer to look to science. The true truth, when it comes to God or no God, is nobody knows. At least science accepts that.

As an additional note, science should not be confused with atheism. Science isn't offered as an alternative to religion, as it is so often misunderstood to do. Science is just about observing the world around us, attempting to understand the processes. There are many agnostic and theist scientists out there. There are also many atheists who do not trust the conclusions of scientists unquestioningly, some not at all. So there really isn't a question of having to choose between science and belief in a theology, except that science is unlikely to provide evidence for those beliefs.

[Tiko]

I'm glad that after all this time, this topic still recieves some replies, even though seldomly but I never expected more. Thank you for your thoughts, yet I'd love to hear more.

Re-reading the replies I found that most people have a common misunderstanding about the general concept of religion - or the concept of God for that matter -, but it's not my place to challenge that point of view. Anyway, I see that most people 'take sides' in the question, and the most common word that is used as a synonym or consequence for science is progress. So further evaluating my original question: What is this progress exactly, and where is it leading us? Is this 'progress' equals to advancement for our species as a whole or right on the contrary? And if so, why?

Thanks for your time.

[andretimpa]

I'd say it is a progress on our knowledge. If this new knowledge makes the world a better or worse place is a more blury question. For example, atomic bombs are bad, but atomic energy can be extremelly useful. Both ideas are the consequence of the same basic discoveries.

[Hboson]

Progress and scientific advancement are not the same in my opinion. So some bad comes from scientific advancement and some good.

From a positive point of view I would say that medical technology has generally improved the quality of life for a lot of people. Not everyone gets to access that, but that isn't a problem with the science, it is an economic one. Some negatives can be found, and possible consequences reasoned out. However, I think mostly the positives of medical science outweigh the negatives.
Additionally, if we are to survive beyond the lifetime of our star, scientific advancement will be crucial to achieving this. Science enables us to predict weather and improves early warning systems which enable many lives to be saved. People who would have died if not for these systems.
The more we learn about the world around us, the more we are able to prevent death and suffering. Unfortunately, the advancements of science are also able to increase death, suffering and the exploitation of the planet. This is not because it was the intention of science, but because some humans are cruel and self-serving.
Science contributes to the search for alternative energy sources. It enables us to understand the human brain, and attempt to help those with mental illness.
So the way I see it is the main progress is that of improving the quality of life, saving lives and surviving further into the future than we could without science.

As to the misunderstanding of God, not sure if it applies to me, but I will say how I understand the concept, and you can tell me if I am wrong. God is a creator entity, and there is no proof of Its existence, and so belief is an article of faith. That is a very brief description to fit with as many different ideas of God as possible. The most common aspects of the concept of God are creation, powerful and interested in the lives of men. I think this fits pretty well with the definition of God, being
1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
(googled the definition)

[OldTrees]

I'm curious about what does science mean to people. You're free to explain why did you chose it over any "supernatural" interpretation of the world, but I guess there are a few topics out there already with similar confessions. I want to know the reasons for one putting faith in Science, either s/he spares some for 'outside' the material or not.

I'm also curious about how would you define the purpose of science. How does it serve mankind exactly, and if so, where are its limits?

Please, share.

Among other things, humans pursue knowledge. We are thinking beings and also have a thirst for understanding. We can conceive questions and then seek to answer them. This is not the sum of human nature but it is an integral part and sets some background for your question. There is a wide diversity in the nature of the questions humans can conceive of. This diversity even extends to if and how the question can be answered. Science is one of the methods Humans have discovered for answering some questions. Specifically falsifiable questions for which we have the means of testing for the falsification.

Note that nothing in the previous paragraph mentioned if I do/do not believe in something supernatural. The supernatural can be defined as something beyond the capacity for scientific understanding. In other words it is unable to be phrased as a falsifiable question. Humans have conceived of a large number of questions for which we do not have a means of testing for their falsification. However we also don't have the means for testing for the falsification of "Are there questions that cannot be phrased in a falsifiable manner?". At this point we know neither if the supernatural exists, nor if what is currently consider supernatural is in fact supernatural.


Finally the question of purpose. I separated this off because I am going to be less rigorous and thus this will apply to fewer potential realities.

I believe that purpose only exists from the usage by a being with a goal. When that occurs the purpose of the tool is the goal to which the being is putting it. A knife does not have the inherent purpose of cutting. If I pick up a paring knife with the intent to use it to hammer a nail, then the purpose which I am giving to the knife is to hammer the nail. Science does not have an inherent purpose. Beings can and have given it various temporary purposes over the years in the process of using Science as a tool towards their goals. However these purposes are not inherent characteristics of Science.

@Tiko
Feel free to challenge anything here. I have found such challenges good for practicing intellectual empathy(which is another powerful tool for answering questions).

[ElementalDearWatson]

To put faith in science is to do it wrong.  The reason that scientific experiments should be replicable and falsifiable is precisely so that they don't require faith.  Scientific hypotheses live or die on how accurately they model reality.

But why is it better than a faith-based system?  It works.  It's not perfect, but it works. 

Religion and superstition were the dominant modes of thought for thousands of years.  Science has been the dominant mode of thought for a couple of hundred years, and look how much more we know about the world now than we did then.

[montrossen]

There is a theory that every theory science makes will eventually be proven wrong or obsolete. It says that there are always new discoveries being made, challenging science. When this happens, the theories it questions will do one of three things: 1)It will prove itself to be correct. 2)It will change itself to be correct. 3)It will become incorrect.

Because there is no evidence that new discoveries will ever stop being discovered, it seems inevitable that eventually, every single theory will become obsolete or incorrect. However, many of these theories are still correct in their own 'fields'. For example, newtonian physics will tell you exactly where a baseball hit by a bat will land, if you know all the variables contributing to the baseball's movement. But if you try to use newtonian physics to find where a subatomic particle will land, it will be completely incorrect because quantum mechanics does not obey Newton's laws. Therefore, the discovery of quantum physics rendered newtonian physics obsolete.

[OldTrees]

There is a theory that every theory science makes will eventually be proven wrong or obsolete. It says that there are always new discoveries being made, challenging science. When this happens, the theories it questions will do one of three things: 1)It will prove itself to be correct. 2)It will change itself to be correct. 3)It will become incorrect.

Because there is no evidence that new discoveries will ever stop being discovered, it seems inevitable that eventually, every single theory will become obsolete or incorrect. However, many of these theories are still correct in their own 'fields'. For example, newtonian physics will tell you exactly where a baseball hit by a bat will land, if you know all the variables contributing to the baseball's movement. But if you try to use newtonian physics to find where a subatomic particle will land, it will be completely incorrect because quantum mechanics does not obey Newton's laws. Therefore, the discovery of quantum physics rendered newtonian physics obsolete.

Interesting. Theories about the fundamental particle do seem to follow that pattern. However I think the jump from "there will be an indefinite number of discoveries" to "there will be a counterexample to all of the indefinite number of discoveries" is a flawed leap in logic.

If we were talking about a finite number then it would be a self evident flawed leap. To show the flaw with an indefinite number consider the indefinite number of rational numbers between 0 and 1. Even with that indefinite number of examples, I would not be able to find a counterexample to any theory about numbers between 4 and 5. Thus we know that two sets being infinite is not enough to assume they map 1:1 in a meaningful context.

[seulintse]

completely different rant kinda answering the FIRST question of this thread (kinda, not really) and responding to Hbosons post:faith typically means believing something when you don't quite have all the answers... it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does in some sort of deity (aetheism vs. ... theology? its hard enough to not piss anyone off with aetheism alone). Science isn't completely infallible, and so is christianity or whoever you so please to believe in. Christianity can be criticized for certain things (I'm going to just use christianity, since its my religion that I chose to believe in), but its hard to think that a figure like jesus came out of no where, and all the events that supposedly (since you kinda have to take both sides of skepticism when arguing religion...) happened... happened. Sure, its hard to believe he came out of the grave 3 days after death or fed five thousand people with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish, or any of the miracles, really, but the idea that all of these were 'caused by one divine being kinda has to mean something. How would someone like me in 2 millenium do nothing significant in the course of human history, or perhaps some small good deeds that warrant little to no place in history, but somehow this average joe is attributed with miraculous healings and revivals better than resurrecting that damn character in an RPG that keeps dying for no reason? My point is if Jesus existed and didn't do anything spectacular more than you or me, he probably wouldn't be known today for... what he's known for (more so the whole idea of christianity as a religion... I don't necessarily believe christianity as a religion and more as a relationship, since every other religion believes you have to appease some deity and that you aren't in good standings with them to begin with, but thats a whole new pointless argument to start for a thread).

[ElementalDearWatson]

It says that there are always new discoveries being made, challenging science. When this happens, the theories it questions will do one of three things: 1)It will prove itself to be correct. 2)It will change itself to be correct. 3)It will become incorrect.

Well, 1's wrong, for a start.  The very way that science works means that no theory can ever be proven correct.  What happens is that people set up experiments to try to disprove hypotheses.  The more that people fail to disprove a hypothesis, the more likely it is to be true.

However, many of these theories are still correct in their own 'fields'. For example, newtonian physics will tell you exactly where a baseball hit by a bat will land, if you know all the variables contributing to the baseball's movement. But if you try to use newtonian physics to find where a subatomic particle will land, it will be completely incorrect because quantum mechanics does not obey Newton's laws. Therefore, the discovery of quantum physics rendered newtonian physics obsolete.

What you're saying is kind of correct, but you're using the wrong terminology, and seem to be misunderstanding the fundamentals.  Newtonian physics is not obsolete at all.  NASA, for example, still use Newtonian physics.  It's not the right tool for looking at the quantum world, and it's not the right tool for looking at things that are moving at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light, but it is a very useful tool for describing objects in motion outside of those two situations.  Far from being obsolete, it's in use every single day.