[quote]goldengloves wrote:
[quote]Mascherano wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Basically it comes down to everyone agreeing on a proccess and language for investigating phenomenon.
The difference between science and [philosophy, religion, and magic] is it’s easy to get in definition battles over those last three, hence, you create your own reality. With science, you have a language that you aren’t allowed to define without many other people agreeing on your definition, and you aren’t allowed to describe without following methods everyone else decided on described by the definitions they also decided on. Hence, two people with differing beliefs will can come to the same answer.
For example, in philosphy, no one can make a blanket statement and terms such as “happiness” are free to be defined however the user wishes. In science, you have universal laws agreed on and having the same application to everyone unless proven otherwise (such as the concept of time, which was used a certain way until people were able to redefine how to use it, and now everyone is on board with using it the new way).[/quote]
I disagree here O, all ideologies including religion and magic rely on consensus for validation - not unlike science.
And the very fact that “everyone is on board” is what makes science all the more like magic. We replace our mythology with science because no one (by this I mean mostly regular joes) bother to question it. Thus in place of our deities we now have our Einsteins and Hawkings and we are content to “know” the truth.
Furthermore, science and scientific endeavors are purported by those actors with the means to carry them out. Thus science is imbued with all sorts of social and ideological implications that make it not in the least bit unbiased. See the oil industry, arms race, medical technology as a prime examples.
[/quote]
There’s no need for a regular Joe to question science when science questions itself. I can’t see how science is truly replacing a deity when science actually has a burden of proof either.[/quote]
This. Also, here’s an example of the fact that religion and philosphy don’t have agreed on language:
When discussing what contributes to a population of humans possessing a higher level of happiness with a philosopher, I received the answer:
“Well what makes someone else happy is different than what makes me happy. I’m sure X phenomenon, which you say makes no one happy, has made someone happy in the history of exisstance. Because happiness is so personally defined, there’s no way we can know for sure what will make a bunch of people happier. All I can know is that makes me happy.”
However, if you ready psychological literature you find:
“Happiness is defined as Sense of Well-being and is measured by these things. A raise by this percentage contributes this much” So already I know what someone else is talking about when they say happiness, i know which phenomenon their discussing, and they have data coming from outside of themselves rather than “I personally think this”.
As for Einstien and Hawkings being gods of science, that’s hilarious. Einstien tried to disprove his own theory of relativity many times and so has everyone else. Hell, we’re still checking atomic clocks coming off of airports to see if he was right!
Also, if it wasn’t for the questioning of previous data through science, einstien would still be following newton’s reasoning about everything. But instead of accepting the “gods” knowledge, he tested it and made adjustments to what he found.
Irene Pepperberg questioned the “fact” that only mammals were capable of cognition and proved it wrong (that happened in the last 10 years) and there are billions of other examples of “facts” being constantly questioned.
No one’s proof is good enough, not even the big names in science. For every big name, there are thousands trying to disprove.