Scientific rights
-
- Posts: 212
- Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:41 pm
Scientific rights
Many ‘enlightened’ academics refuse to place any faith in a deity or theism of any sort while they’re more than willing to place faith in secularism and science (e.g., evolution).
Are not science and secularism somewhat like faiths -- i.e., faiths in humanity and in ‘knowledge’?
We ardently teach science in our public schools because it’s a ‘fact’ of contemporary times. We’ll usually believe in some ‘study findings’ or in some people in long, white lab coats that claim their scientific ‘fact(s)’ to be true; however, when the populace reads or hears that some scientific ‘fact(s)’ is/are indeed outdated or flawed, we’ll consume the new ‘fact(s)’ as gospel truth.
After all, it’s science, right?
Are not science and secularism somewhat like faiths -- i.e., faiths in humanity and in ‘knowledge’?
We ardently teach science in our public schools because it’s a ‘fact’ of contemporary times. We’ll usually believe in some ‘study findings’ or in some people in long, white lab coats that claim their scientific ‘fact(s)’ to be true; however, when the populace reads or hears that some scientific ‘fact(s)’ is/are indeed outdated or flawed, we’ll consume the new ‘fact(s)’ as gospel truth.
After all, it’s science, right?
Re: Scientific rights
No, science is not faith. Science is this process:
1) Form a hypothesis.
2) Gather data and test the hypothesis.
3) Form a conclusion based on the tests.
Faith is this process:
1) Form a hypothesis.
2) Form a conclusion based on the hypothesis.
The difference is that science is based on testing your hypothesis and forming a conclusion based on what you observe, while faith is based on refusing to test and ignoring what you observe.
1) Form a hypothesis.
2) Gather data and test the hypothesis.
3) Form a conclusion based on the tests.
Faith is this process:
1) Form a hypothesis.
2) Form a conclusion based on the hypothesis.
The difference is that science is based on testing your hypothesis and forming a conclusion based on what you observe, while faith is based on refusing to test and ignoring what you observe.
Re: Scientific rights
I'll add that I'd agree, depending on your definition of "know" and "truth", that there's no way to know the truth about anything. The universe may be an illusion, and the Matrix, and so on. But that has nothing to do with anything; there is still a big difference between the process of science and the process of faith. Even if the observable universe is "false", the process of figuring it out is still very different than the process of ignoring it and believing in something else.
Re: Scientific rights
One of the most significant differences between science and faith (IMHO) shows when the leading practitioners are confronted with new evidence.
When scientists get evidence that appears to overturn some previously held theory, they are cautious, skeptical, but then, if the evidence stacks up, they are excited, curious, and (at the very least) they recogise there are some good papers to be written on this; some new research grants; they might have to rethink huge chunks of previously 'fundamental' stuff; there might even be a Nobel in it!
When religious leaders are so confronted, they tend to be Affronted. It's heresy, it's wrong, it's a conspiracy by the godless.
When scientists get evidence that appears to overturn some previously held theory, they are cautious, skeptical, but then, if the evidence stacks up, they are excited, curious, and (at the very least) they recogise there are some good papers to be written on this; some new research grants; they might have to rethink huge chunks of previously 'fundamental' stuff; there might even be a Nobel in it!
When religious leaders are so confronted, they tend to be Affronted. It's heresy, it's wrong, it's a conspiracy by the godless.
Re: Scientific rights
I also want to add that this isn't actually true:
In the U.S. at least, the public schools that embrace secularism are outnumbered by the ones who embrace Christianity and see secularism as a bad thing being forced upon them by the government. A majority of people in the U.S. do not believe in science, and think that science is a liberal conspiracy of some sort. A majority believe in the literal creation story in Genesis, and see evolution as a liberal conspiracy. In this forum, even, where one would think that science and philosophy would prevail, you will find that the majority think that science is a conspiracy of some sort (a liberal conspiracy if they're older folks, or a generic authoritarian conspiracy if they're younger), and that everything from global warming to relativity to basic physics might be a lie that is part of this conspiracy.We ardently teach science in our public schools because it’s a ‘fact’ of contemporary times. We’ll usually believe in some ‘study findings’ or in some people in long, white lab coats that claim their scientific ‘fact(s)’ to be true; however, when the populace reads or hears that some scientific ‘fact(s)’ is/are indeed outdated or flawed, we’ll consume the new ‘fact(s)’ as gospel truth.
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Scientific rights
I'd have a slight quibble,converge wrote:...
1) Form a hypothesis.
2) Gather data and test the hypothesis.
3) Form a conclusion based on the tests.
...
1) Observe
2) Form a hypothesis.
...
Re: Scientific rights
Converge wrote:
Put more simply, 'science' incorporates 'faith' and is founded on it. Admittedly, there is a distinction between critical and non-critical approaches (e.g. the claims regarding the movement of sub-atomic particles as opposed to claims about the nature of a divine entity and its alleged 'will'). However, any critical process involves an orientation, a fidelity to principles. At the heart of critical enquiry is an urge, a drive; if not, it is purely mechanical and as such can never be conscious of itself and its mistakes (or at least, it can never 'care' about them, but merely rectify them). It is the 'care' of the critical thinker - regardless of whether we use the term 'scientist' - which constitutes the foundation of critical thought. This care is not an object of science.
I think you're narrowing the field of possible meanings of the term 'faith'. If I'm not mistaken, you're making the distinction between a procedure of critical observation and an uncritical assertion (where, for you, the former is 'science' and the latter is 'faith'). I think you and I agree that there is a distinction between the two; however, we disagree insofar as I am reluctant to make the assertion that critical observation can be and is critical of itself in regards to its principles and foundations. Alongside this, I contend that any activity which makes use of the above process is not critical through and through, but rather must be founded upon an unritical assertion (what I think you would call 'faith').science is not faith. Science is this process:
1) Form a hypothesis.
2) Gather data and test the hypothesis.
3) Form a conclusion based on the tests.
Put more simply, 'science' incorporates 'faith' and is founded on it. Admittedly, there is a distinction between critical and non-critical approaches (e.g. the claims regarding the movement of sub-atomic particles as opposed to claims about the nature of a divine entity and its alleged 'will'). However, any critical process involves an orientation, a fidelity to principles. At the heart of critical enquiry is an urge, a drive; if not, it is purely mechanical and as such can never be conscious of itself and its mistakes (or at least, it can never 'care' about them, but merely rectify them). It is the 'care' of the critical thinker - regardless of whether we use the term 'scientist' - which constitutes the foundation of critical thought. This care is not an object of science.
Re: Scientific rights
I don't see where you are placing faith. Do you mean faith that the process of critical observation itself works? I'd say whether or not you have faith that critical observation works, you could still do it, and it would still be faith-free. You could just choose to be ambivalent about whether what you're observing is true or an illusion. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you though.ala1993 wrote:Converge wrote:I think you're narrowing the field of possible meanings of the term 'faith'. If I'm not mistaken, you're making the distinction between a procedure of critical observation and an uncritical assertion (where, for you, the former is 'science' and the latter is 'faith'). I think you and I agree that there is a distinction between the two; however, we disagree insofar as I am reluctant to make the assertion that critical observation can be and is critical of itself in regards to its principles and foundations. Alongside this, I contend that any activity which makes use of the above process is not critical through and through, but rather must be founded upon an unritical assertion (what I think you would call 'faith').science is not faith. Science is this process:
1) Form a hypothesis.
2) Gather data and test the hypothesis.
3) Form a conclusion based on the tests.
Put more simply, 'science' incorporates 'faith' and is founded on it. Admittedly, there is a distinction between critical and non-critical approaches (e.g. the claims regarding the movement of sub-atomic particles as opposed to claims about the nature of a divine entity and its alleged 'will'). However, any critical process involves an orientation, a fidelity to principles. At the heart of critical enquiry is an urge, a drive; if not, it is purely mechanical and as such can never be conscious of itself and its mistakes (or at least, it can never 'care' about them, but merely rectify them). It is the 'care' of the critical thinker - regardless of whether we use the term 'scientist' - which constitutes the foundation of critical thought. This care is not an object of science.
I'd agree that scientists have emotions (despite the way some of them act!) and that they might hold scientific integrity or the quest for truth in high regard, but I wouldn't necessarily say they have "faith" in those things. I think certain things are good or bad, but I wouldn't say I have faith that they're good or bad; I just see them as my own opinions.
Re: Scientific rights
Yes. That being said, such faith is apparent only in the activities which constitute critical scientific enquiry; put more simply, we don't 'have' but rather 'do' faith. Zizek has written about faith being retroactive, insofar as we can come to a conscious recognition of our uncritical assumptions but, at the point of such recognition, we always already assume them to be the case. So perhaps I don't mean exactly what you have stated here, but rather a unifiction of faith and activity in critical enquiry and the commitment to it.Do you mean faith that the process of critical observation itself works?
I would pose the counter-claim that the carrying out of such 'observation' not only implies but also requires 'faith' (i.e. an uncriticised series of assumptions upon which such observation can operate). Ultimately, if critical enquiry were free of assumption then it would not be necessary. We believe it can be used to reveal, illuminate and perhaps even temper the biases of observers. If we did not believe this then we would not operate in this way.I'd say whether or not you have faith that critical observation works, you could still do it, and it would still be faith-free
While I'm here (and seeing as how this thread has already touched upon the teaching of science in US schools) I'd like to state that I propose a difference not between the 'scientific' and the 'religious' but rather between what I refer to as the 'dogmatic' and the 'critical'. We should attempt to oppose the two and use the latter in order to illuminate and nullify the effects of the former; however, 'science' can be presented dogmatically and 'religion' can be addressed critically.
Re: Scientific rights
Not so much because it's science, more like plausibility and group think.FrankGSterleJr wrote:We ardently teach science in our public schools because it’s a ‘fact’ of contemporary times. We’ll usually believe in some ‘study findings’ or in some people in long, white lab coats that claim their scientific ‘fact(s)’ to be true; however, when the populace reads or hears that some scientific ‘fact(s)’ is/are indeed outdated or flawed, we’ll consume the new ‘fact(s)’ as gospel truth.
After all, it’s science, right?
Re: Scientific rights
Hexhammer wrote:
So, I agree in part with Hexhammer; there is a distinction between 'science' and 'group thinking' (I assume you mean 'consensus'?). However, it is not an inevitable fact of modern pre-college academia that consensus is taught instead of science.
The science taught in high school (or secondary school, for those of you in the UK) is an attempt to do two things: firstly, to demonstrate the importance of a critical orientation towards established 'facts'; secondly, to learn those facts as an interlocking series. Any student who truly pays attention in science class will notice that the so-called 'truths' of science are heterogeneous and fractured. However, many come away with the misguided (although ultimately beneficial as far as the ontology of the workplace is concerned) idea that there are right and wrong answers to questions which themselves are either meaningful or meaningless.Not so much because it's science, more like plausibility and group think.
So, I agree in part with Hexhammer; there is a distinction between 'science' and 'group thinking' (I assume you mean 'consensus'?). However, it is not an inevitable fact of modern pre-college academia that consensus is taught instead of science.
Re: Scientific rights
No, Group Think is Group Think, a terrible term in Psychology, where weak people will do and say blatantly wrong things, even go against their nature.ala1993 wrote:Hexhammer wrote:
The science taught in high school (or secondary school, for those of you in the UK) is an attempt to do two things: firstly, to demonstrate the importance of a critical orientation towards established 'facts'; secondly, to learn those facts as an interlocking series. Any student who truly pays attention in science class will notice that the so-called 'truths' of science are heterogeneous and fractured. However, many come away with the misguided (although ultimately beneficial as far as the ontology of the workplace is concerned) idea that there are right and wrong answers to questions which themselves are either meaningful or meaningless.Not so much because it's science, more like plausibility and group think.
So, I agree in part with Hexhammer; there is a distinction between 'science' and 'group thinking' (I assume you mean 'consensus'?). However, it is not an inevitable fact of modern pre-college academia that consensus is taught instead of science.