Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Humanist_Activist

(7,670 posts)
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 06:12 AM Sep 2012

What science is, and what it isn't, a primer on the scientific method...

This post was inspired by reading two past posts, both on this message board, I'm not calling anyone out, but in one, someone expressed what they called scepticism at the idea that humans descended from apes, and the other the idea that science "proves" things.

In relation to the first post, I responded by clarifying that humans didn't really descend from apes, a misunderstanding that is common among people, but rather that we are apes ourselves. The reaction was rather surprising, if heartfelt from this member, they categorically denied that we are apes, something that has actually been recognized for far longer than Darwin was around, even though he was able to help put some of the pieces together to clarify how we are apes.

This seems to illustrate a common problem, misrepresenting scepticism to hide a closed mind, a mind that was made up, despite the evidence. If the poster in question demanded evidence for the assertion I made, I would have happily provided it, the question is, would he have admitted he was wrong? Would he have changed his mind? I don't like speculating on the state of another person's mind, but I will anyways, and say no.

The reason why I mention this past experience because it illustrates a rather common human trait, being pig headed. We don't like, as a matter of course, to admit we are wrong, it is something that seems universal. Whether its biological in origin, or cultural, is harder to quantify.

This is where the scientific method comes in, because there is one very basic assumption that allows science to work, that humans suck at admitting they can be wrong. That our perceptions and thoughts can be inaccurate. The scientific method is designed to reduce, if not eliminate these biases, as much as possible.

As a result of this, science doesn't deal with absolute truth, for in science, it doesn't work. All theories in science are tentative, subject to change, regardless of how much evidence supports them. They are "true" only in so much that they explain current phenomenon, if something comes along that doesn't fit, then, after checking that that experiment or observation is accurate, the theory will have to change to fit the facts and evidence found.

So for someone to ask for science to "prove" something, well, it can explain facts, give a framework that fits the evidence, but it doesn't prove a damn thing, not in the sense meant here. Come to think of it, if science could prove or explain anything completely, well, it would stop, wouldn't it?

Science is also limited to the examination and explanation of the material universe(and energy too). From the fundamental forces to us. Anything outside this is outside its purview, yet this limit isn't nearly as fundamental as many make it out to be. For one, it includes everything material, and only those things that are common among all, objective facts.

For example, let's look at art, can a painting be examined scientifically? Yes, to determine if it was a true painting of a particular painter, for example, but can science help understand its beauty? Well, that's where things get fuzzy, when it comes to subjective judgements, no.

If I said that Vincent van Gogh was a hack who had no talent, am I wrong? No, but you may disagree with me, and be right. The argument that ensues wouldn't be a scientific argument, but rather one of aesthetics and personal preferences. We may be passionate about our beliefs on the merits of this artist, but that wouldn't change the fact that it is nothing more than opinion.

This is key, another thing science doesn't deal with is opinion alone, but rather opinions backed up by evidence. In the case of the art, there is no objective right or wrong, its all in the eye of the beholder. We even attach meaning to such things, even beyond what the original artist did, as far as we know(unless it is documented), they painted their works to pay for their next meal or next drink or drug fix.

When a disagreement occurs in the art world, you don't see peer review journals writing papers on whether one artist or another is more beautiful, that would be foolish. Yet this is how scientific debate is done, and also how it is resolved, consensus is generally reached, it can take a while, but it will happen. Whereas in the art world, the pro-Goghians and anti-Goghians will dig in their heels and not move from them.

What applies to art applies to many other aspects of human culture and life, religion being primary. Similarly to the art world, the aspects of religion and other cultural traditions are extremely subjective, whether it comes to gods, rituals, and the beliefs surrounding them.

Is religion in opposition to science? Yes, but only insofar as it makes claims testable by science, and in every case, religious claims have been found to be lacking evidence. Whether its claims of gods throwing lightening bolts to windows in a firmament that brings down rain, to the origins of the universe, or life, or the diversification of life, science has been able to provide answers, no matter how tentative, that fit the facts.

What science can't do is examine the supernatural, by its very nature, it is beyond science, as a result, it doesn't exist as an explainable phenomenon. Instead, like art, it is only a matter of opinion with no objective way of determining right or wrong. Which gods are real? Vishnu? YHWH? Ahura Mazda?

You can find people who believe strongly in their opinions and beliefs on this issue, but ultimately, its no more than opinion.

Within this context, atheism can be best described as not having an opinion at all on this question.

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
1. I can think of at least one place where western religion makes a testable claim and came up right.
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 08:55 AM
Sep 2012

Its in Deuteronomy which contains a number of rules about how Jews were to live...

Deuteronomy 23:13 "And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee:"

This is a rule on personal hygiene seemingly intended to maintain public health. What it says is that when you are out and about and need to relieve yourself, you are to dig a cat-hole latrine and after having relieved yourself, cover over the hole and wastes. Not every religious claim that is testable has come up lacking evidence Such latrines do limit contact with human waste that is potentially pathogen bearing.

Of course this begs the questions of what makes statements religious and how we would recognize a religious statement from a non-religious statement.
 

Humanist_Activist

(7,670 posts)
2. Religious claims would be those about the supernatural or causes of things...
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 06:12 PM
Sep 2012

humans have known, for thousands of years, about basic hygiene. Of course, it didn't specify where to dig the hole, so even there, it may just not be specific enough.

The Bible is a combination of ancient myths from surrounding cultures, some oral and written history, ritual rules, moral rules, practical rules, such as you mentioned, and religious rules. Its not 100% crap, but, just like other books, scrolls, and tablets similar to it, its just mostly crap.

dimbear

(6,271 posts)
3. I notice you mention a person being pigheaded. A tip of the hat to the competing theory that
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 06:33 PM
Sep 2012

humans descend from pigs. Or vice versa. (Commonly still met in creationist circles. The similarity of the pig's internal organs to our own is well known in medical circles, hence the transplants. )

I think it's safe to say that this competing theory does not deserve much respect nowadays. DNA and all that. There is a mechanism in science which corrects mistaken hypotheses in due time. Would that such existed in religion.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
4. But is religion as a whole -REQUIRED- to be filled with uncorrected errors, dogmatic and unchanging?
Thu Sep 20, 2012, 10:50 AM
Sep 2012

I don't know that is true. I know enough to know there have been many changes to the character of religion in the West over the past several thousands of years...even within dominant religion the last 500 years don't suggest an absence of change.

I don't challenge that you may have in mind specific religions or sects within religions that indeed are dogmatic and attempt to be unchanging. But, where are the rules for what a religion can and cannot be? Where are the diacritical rules written that distinguish religious beliefs from other beliefs?

I can't help but think that the a priori assumptions do quite a bit of stacking the deck to what some find to be familiar.

Why couldn't a religion be progressive and adaptable? Is believing that religion cannot have self-correcting mechanisms simply a projection, an overstated inference, from specific encounters with contemporary fundamentalism to a global statement about how all religions, even those not yet created, must be?









Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»What science is, and what...