Lay it all out!

Calling science a faith, or ideology, or something akin to that is at best ignorant,

Page 1 2 » 38 comments
Jul 27, 2017
Wisecrack posted:
The Philosophy of Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood – Wisecrack Edition
Watch Video
Calling science a faith, or ideology, or something akin to that is at best ignorant, or at worst deliberate misrepresentation. Science knows it doesn't have all the answers, otherwise it would stop. The other models given as comparison are more often, and in some instances quite literally, faith based and ideological and as a result haven't achieved anywhere near what science has. That is false equivalence.

Also, asking the question of should vs can in the progression of science is definitely an issue. That means applying morality to the search for truth (via science or whatever). There is nothing wrong with that. But arguing that science is misused, therefore it is bad, is a criticism that could be levelled at anything.

25
Aug 17, 2017
It's not so much that he is saying science is a religion, in fact he doesn't because faith is the religion. He's saying blindly pursuing the advancement of knowledge with disregard to harm caused (like Father) is a bad thing. He thinks that all these different methods (spirituality, faith, science) should be used to understand the world we live in. Religion gives us a moral understanding, regardless of whether there is a God or not
13
Aug 17, 2017
Does it? I'm not sure religion does give us morals. I'd concede that religious institutions have acted as a way of instilling a moral creed to a large group. I suppose it depends what you mean by religion, because there were certainly many times when religion acted as the genesis of philosophical thoughts on morality, or as a distributor of that philosophical thought on morality. But religion has also acted to halt moral progress, especially after education became something that people outside of the church could do.
7
Aug 17, 2017
Tyson Adams said:
Does it? I'm not sure religion does give us morals. I'd concede that religious institutions have acted as a way of instilling a moral creed to a large group. I suppose it depends what you mean by religion, because there were certainly many times when religion acted as the genesis of philosophical thoughts on morality, or as a distributor of that philosophical thought on morality. But religion has also acted to halt moral progress, especially after education became something that people outside of the church could do.
By religion I mean their basic principals, not how they're twisted for agendas. Since I'm a Christian I'll only speak for Christianity here. The actual teachings never say you shouldn't continue learning or anything like that. And although there are lots of morally questionable things that happen within the Bible, if it's not situational (i.e. David killed Goliath to help defend his people, Goliath's people were killing with no reason therefore in that situation David was in the right) then people are punished for doing these things either at judgement or by his hand immediately. Christianity doesn't call for genocide but has been manipulated that way by extremists who don't truly follow the religion. Despite in actuality being one of love and acceptance, where you are taught to love others regardless of whether they believe in your religion or not. So religion in its purest uncorrupted form gives us a moral view.
2
Aug 17, 2017
Most of the moral themes in Christianity predate it and were drawn heavily from philosophy. Hence my previous comment. Worth having a read of Russell's History of Western Philosophy to see the elements.

And I agree, there is definitely a twisting of religion by people. Russell summed it up nicely: "Cruel men believe in a cruel god and use their belief to excuse their cruelty. Only kindly men believe in a kindly god, and they would be kindly in any case."

3
Aug 19, 2017
Atheists still have morals. Religions are not necessary for the development of morals.
6
Aug 24, 2017
Two points. While science might admit that it doesn't have any answers, it DOES claim that eventually it WILL get all answers. And that nothing is out of the reach or comprehension. It will just take time. And that is the attitude that makes science go off the rails. As Michael Crichton puts beautifully in Jurassic Park, scientists are to absorbed in thinking if they can, that they don't consider if they SHOULD. And as you stated, sure atheists have morals. But they have no accountability to hold them to those morals. Call it a fable, call it mythology, but the "fear of God" or "fear of hell" lends a certain amount of accountability to religious morals that science lacks. There is no reason to be beholden to one's morals other than choice. If push comes to shove, it'll go down the drain. Be it temptation of money or power, other kinds of profit, fear of failure or death, morals will go out the window in the face of adversity due to the lack of accountability. And that is exactly what is happening with science in the current times. There is no moral thought given to scientific experiments, be it biological, genetic, pharmaceutical or nuclear. The prime objective is profit. Whether of money, fame or power....anything that said person holds dear.
0
Aug 24, 2017
Arkenn, it is interesting that you treat science and scientists as the same thing, they aren't. It is also interesting that you treat scientists as a homogenous group of strawmen.

Your points are not only fallacious, but erroneous. Science and scientists already know there are certain things that are beyond the reach or comprehension. Some things just can't be tested. Some things would take too long to test. Etc.

I'm not sure that referencing Crichton strengthens your point. Citing a known science denier (climate denier, anti-environmentalism) just illustrates further the distorted view of science you have.

Now, morals do not come from religion. Saying that religion, or fear of god or hell, strengthens moral accountability, is nonsense. If that is what it takes you to have morals and moral accountability, then your moral fibre must be worthless. But it also shows that you are presuming scientists aren't moral, or aren't religious, or aren't thinking. None of these are true.

Essentially all of your post amounts to an ignorance informed by those who hate science, or ignorance based upon convenient strawmen you've seen attacked before. I don't mean this as an insult, but as a call to actually engage with science at a more meaningful level. Because at the moment your post is incredibly insulting.

But do tell me more about science going off the rails over the internet. Feel free to ignore the hypocrisy inherent in that action.

1
Aug 24, 2017
Science is only what scientists make of it. Its not an entity of its own. Just like religion is pretty much 99% of what organized religion makes it. Just like the church is responsible for everything in christianity, right from dictating what books are official gospels and which are not, same goes for science. So scientists and science are part of the same idealogy.

As for my view, I'm not against science. I'm not even highly religious. But as stated in the video, I DO agree with the philosophy that just like religion, science has its flaws. And like religion's flaws lie in logic, science's flaws lie in morals. And as human beings, we cannot live without either logic OR morals. As much as we like to point out that religion is responsible for a lot of riots and wars, if it were not for religion, we would've long ago annihilated ourselves as a species.

And instead of insulting my moral fiber, why don't you justify how your morality holds without accountability. Its not me saying this, but psychological studies have proved that morality is not instinct for human beings or any living being on this planet. Our instinct is survival. And if morals stand in the way of survival, they WILL lose.

Look at any military industrial complex in the world. Look at the hundreds of pharmaceutical corporations. As stated in the video, science does not come cheap. And whenever money is involved, there is always greed. Whoever finance the scientific advances, own the application of it. No pharmaceutical company is gonna sink millions of dollars into say, cancer research and then offer the results to the sick people for free. Nope. If someone does manage to get a drug, it'll be charged thousands of dollars. Look at your commonplace drugs. Do you think a simple Aspirin costs as much as corporations charge you for it? Ofcourse not.

Mate, you're naive if you think morals will hold in the absence of any accountability. When life hits you hard, you need something to fall back on, otherwise all these things like morals and principles are useless.

0
Aug 24, 2017
Actually, you are against science. Your statements here confound a number of things in order to further your "moral" argument. You're trying to point out flaws in a strawman, worse, a strawman that is mixed up with others. E.g. you aren't distinguishing between the business, economics, business people, etc, and the science of finding a cancer treatment. You're trying to assert they are the same thing, when they just aren't.

While science isn't without flaws, you don't even come close to stating a valid argument that addresses one of these flaws. The closest you come is alluding to science being conducted by people (who are inherently flawed) and operating within larger social and economic system.

The fact that you think science is an ideology really just illustrates how little you understand about this topic. Science is a methodology. So before calling someone naive, best make sure you actually have the first clue about the topic at hand.

0
Aug 24, 2017
Wow I thought you were arguing on behalf of science. I would've really expected you to present more logical counterarguments than beat around the bush with the strawman analogy.

Anyhow, you're just sidestepping any logical argument so I see no point in presenting any further ones. You have already failed to answer the questions I asked and instead decided to completely quote false information like science and business, economics are not the same thing. Despite the fact that I actually gave you an example on how they're the same thing.

You want to stick to the illusion that science is this sterile, methodical field of study. And that is the case only in the abstract world of textbooks and theory. In the real world, just like Fullmetal Alchemist displays expertly, science is merely just another way to gain power. Humans do not care about selfless, altruistic knowledge. Atleast the humans which get things done don't. It does not pay the bills or feed your kids or give you fame. The sooner you realize that, the better you'll see through the facade.

Open your eyes and exit the world of theoretical knowledge and see the world for what it is. Just like religion isn't sterile from the corruption of the world, neither is science. Both of them serve the same purpose. In the classical AND corrupted sense. And both need to be treated in the same category.

0
Aug 24, 2017
You haven't actually raised any valid points as yet. That is what I'm trying to get you to understand. Your "arguments" are confounding multiple things. I can't answer a question that is nonsense.

Also, you've accused me of being naive and illogical, yet that is what you are doing and what I'm trying to point it out to you. The sooner you understand how flawed your statements are the sooner we can have an actual conversation here.

And no, science isn't another way to gain power. Not in an individualistic sense at least. If that were true then scientists would actually hold some sway in the world, instead of having to (e.g.) argue for 50 years that we need to do something to stop climate change. At best science gives society power. That power can be used or misused, and this is the part you start confounding with science.

Another point, you keep making some very broad and sweeping accusatory generalisations, e.g. humans aren't selfless or altruistic (Salk gave away polio vaccine, pretty selfless and altruistic use of knowledge). That again shows a level of ignorance of the topic. It also shows again the irrational and illogical arguments you are trying to raise.

1
Aug 24, 2017
There have been plenty of religious people that were evil, and plenty of otherwise good people that have been misguided by religion into doing evil things. Meanwhile, there have been also plenty of good non-religious people as well.

Religion doesn't guarantee good morals, and lack of religion doesn't guarantee lack of good morals either.

0
Aug 24, 2017
Tiago, agreed. And it is also pretty clear that morals and morality are a societal construct that religion borrows from. The morals of Christianity are drawn heavily from previous religions and prominent philosophical thought at the time of writing. It is clear the morals aren't religious or Christian in origin.

And further to that, religion has often stood in the way of changes to social and moral change. Christianity (as an example to bash) has stood in the way of abolishing slavery, giving women and minorities the vote, etc. So religion can be in direct opposition of good morals because it is often the moral code of a less enlightened time.

1
Sep 3, 2017
Define "good morals"...
This is a entirely a subjective term, there is nothing logically wrong with merging of the daughter and the dog if you look at it purely rationally. Any disagreement you have come from either biological meaning survival instinct(want to protect our young ) or faith based (subjective terms we agreed upon about how we should treat humans or blind faith).
"Less enlightened time" or the idea we have got better morals now comes entirely from faith based thinking because morality is faith based.
I'll give an example, even if most people are disgusted by this not many have a problem with rats been used in real world for similar experiments. Only real difference is intelligence, if human who is really low on that department as same as a rat would it be okay to experiment on him or her?

"It is also interesting that you treat scientists as a homogeneous group of strawmen"
"Science and scientists already know there are certain things that are beyond the reach or comprehension"
How did you manage to put both of them in the same comment.

Also human are incapable of pure altruism so anyone who does anything even if calls himself scientist or a priest it always has something to do with greed. You can be greedy for other things than power for example "knowledge" or "approval" or "fame", admiration.

Tyson Adams you are the one who actually mentioned in the video blind faith on scientists, you can be easily manipulated in the name of science.
(And no, science isn't another way to gain power. Not in an individualistic sense at least. If that were true then scientists would actually hold some sway in the world, instead of having to (e.g.) argue for 50 years that we need to do something to stop climate change. At best science gives society power. That power can be used or misused, and this is the part you start confounding with science.)

Don't take this as a attack on science it's on blind faith. Most people who believe the planet is a globe believe it the same way people who believed planet was flat, neither has gone to the space or gone out in to the ocean to see how a ship comes up they just accepts it because its the general consensus.

0
Sep 3, 2017
JTA, most of your points have already been addressed, so I don't see the reason for your post other than to grandstand.

I will point out that your final paragraph is false. Suggesting that there is "blind faith" in science fails to understand what science is and does. Your example is emblematic of this, since your statement assumes there is only one way to gain knowledge, and everything else is faith that those observations are true. That's utter drivel. That's the wedge arguments that conspiracy mongers use.

And to compare flat earther's belief with the Earth being a oblate spheroid is a failure to understand the difference between evidence and rejection of evidence.

As to a definition of "good morals", well considering the sentence that statement was used in was suggesting that morals are a shifting set of goalposts, I think you have your answer already.

0
Sep 4, 2017
For a human there is only one way of gaining knowledge its through our five sensors everything we observe comes from them everything else is beliefs or assumptions.

Again you doesn't seem to understand this, i am not arguing 2+2=4 is wrong or science requires faith but someone could have blind faith in the institution of science and that can be exploited. Your emotional investment against " conspiracy mongers" is clouding what i am trying to say.

Flat earth was a example how most people believe in general consensus without observing the evidence for themselves. Don't refute your imaginary arguments.

Okay goal post towards what? This has only faith based answer btw.
You can just call this utter drivel and move on.

1
Sep 4, 2017
Um, there are way more than five senses. And no, if you think the only way to know stuff is through self experience then you are grossly wrong. That would mean you wouldn't be able to trust your computer to work, or your car, or anything else, because you didn't learn how to make them.

And yes, most of what you have posted is utter drivel. I mean, you just started a post with "five senses" yet want to lecture me on how I'm not understanding stuff.

0
Sep 6, 2017
Trying not to escalate this flame war. Believing in something too much is unhealthy for you. Putting your complete faith and ideas in something is very unhealthy and is not good. Btw don't waste your time trying to change someone else's opinion over the internet.
0
Sep 6, 2017
Not sure why people continue to insist that science is about belief with their statements. Do people really not understand what science is?
0
Sep 6, 2017
Tyson Adams
My guess is because they've been indoctrinated into atrophying their ability to have critical thinking, and have been brainwashed into thinking reality is based on belief and that facts are subjective.
0
Sep 6, 2017
Yes, quite possibly. I don't want to lay the blame at the feet of post modernism, since it does have a lot of merit, but there are people who seem to be using some of the thinking from that to mistakenly believe there is nothing objective. Short of this reality being an illusion, that just can't be the case, otherwise nothing would work.
0
Sep 7, 2017
The point is that science offers a solution to only one of the necessary questions asked by a sentient being. Science works to explain "how" things work, but it does not explain "why" we should prefer any certain action over another. Science, being the study of nature, does not hold judgment over concepts like murder, war, theft, etc. Those are concerns of self-interest, and so they fall into the domain of personal belief. Philosophy and religion attempt to define concepts like morals and ethics in order to explain "why" certain behaviors should be preferred over others in a given human society; since philosophies and religions can be radically different, so too can the societies which they birth. But science is indifferent to these belief systems, and it can be utilized by Nazis and Buddhists alike. Philosophy, religion and science are tools developed by humans to address complexities of the human condition. The point made in this video is that blindly adhering to one of these tools while dismissing the others is a great way to become a biased zealot. Whether it be an incorrect scientific conclusion, a naive philosophical principle or a dogmatic religious statement: all can do incredible harm when viewed without any context offered by the others.
2
Sep 7, 2017
Thanks, leipies, that's a good way of expanding on the second part of my first post here.
0
Sep 11, 2017
Sorry for late reply haven't been here a while.
"Um, there are way more than five senses. And no, if you think the only way to know stuff is through self experience then you are grossly wrong. That would mean you wouldn't be able to trust your computer to work, or your car, or anything else, because you didn't learn how to make them."

Only way to "know" anything is self experience that's pretty much the definition of knowing something.
Trust is literally believing in something.
Next question who or what are you trusting or believing, is it the technology? or the science of the car?...no if you actually don't know how it works for yourself , it might work using children's blood as fuel you don't know. What you are trusting is people who made the car or the phone so what you have faith in is people not science. And that can be exploited how is this hard to understand.

1
Page 1 2 » 38 comments