I have the suspicion, once you're far enough in any field, you'll view as a process what colloquially is considered a binary state. You'll continue talking like it isn't a process, because you don't have the time to explain it all the time.
Believing that science yields universally true results or is the only method of finding truths, however, is an ontology and something you have to believe.
Edit: I'm not anti-science or anything, just a pedant.
Believing that science yields universally true results or is the only method of finding truths
You just described science asthough it were a belief system. In reality, science has a presumption that your ideals are false, not true. And a person who could only discover truth through science wouldn't be able to dress or feed themselves.
Here is a video by the channel Dr. Fatima (former astrophysicist) which I think has some intersection with this topic. I may have picked the wrong video though because I haven't watched it in months.
Scientism is the belief that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.
While the term was defined originally to mean "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to natural scientists", some scholars, as well as political and religious leaders, have also adopted it as a pejorative term with the meaning "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)".
seems like you're drawing on a guilt by association fallacy
Is there anyone out there who hates Ben Shapiro and the temperamental cranks who act like their subjectiveappeals to emotion & outrage have anywhere as much merit as valid, objective arguments that take actual effort?
The latter is tiresome, and they absolutely deserve Ben's catchphrase: everyone should be appropriating it to nobler causes than Ben's to annoy him & criticize those irrational twerps.
You're referring to quantum effects? Don't worry about whether you're not watching, the universe is watching. If one photon is emitted from the thing in a quantum state and hits anything, that's the observation
What do you mean? Sociology I kind of get, but psychology nowadays is a purely quantitative discipline (despite its subject being squishier than other quantitative sciences).
Yep that's the joke, although I should probably have made it more obvious given that it's the internet and there are real people who probably post this sort of stuff sincerely.
I'm right handed, but often find myself with the cup in my left hand, because I need my dominant hand for high dexterity tasks, like writing, operating computer mouse, etc.
Technically correct since science is a concept and doesn't have feelings, unlike animals, and possibly plants, fungi, all forms of life, who knows, rocks? Idk.
At least, as far as we know right now. But the standard model and quantum field theory have been really solid with really precise predictions for many decades at this point. (not any kind of expert here, just find it interesting)
We do not believe that it functions according to predictible rules, we simply look for rules and we have infact found some. That is why we can design a scyscraper and know that it won't topple without trying it out first.
If we look at the way the universe behaves, quantum mechanics gives us fundamental, unavoidable indeterminacy, so that alternative histories of the universe can be assigned probability.
Murray Gell-Mann
"it posits that the universe functions according to predictable rules"
you
Not quite. Cosmologists accept a certain distribution of predictable phenomena within known parameters while leaving the door open to chaos, outliers, the as of yet unknown and unknowable.
Complexity theory is a model that posits components interact in multiple ways and behave according to local rules. From quantum physics to cosmology and the aspirational yet elusive grand theory of everything, science is prepared for a world weirder than we understand, and possibly weirder than we can understand.
Just because empirical evidence and the development of predictable rules are a very fruitful line of inquiry doesn't mean we believe that is truth.
Philosophers of Science have rather lengthy volumes of work on the subject. I'm just a novice on the topic, but my take on the state of the subject is that we don't accept science and even it's laws as absolute truth, just a very practical, reliable, utilitarian form of inquiry and understanding which includes uncertainty (Heisenberg), probability, complexity and chaos. Scientists are prepared to abandon everything in exchange for something better.
Look at newtonian physics. No one thinks it's the truth, it's just simpler and useful for everyday engineering.
There are rules that govern stochasticity, and especially the behavior of large aggregates of things that indivdually behave stochastically. It's not a tradeoff of 100% locked-down order or headless-chicken chaos. There's a continuum.
No one thinks it’s the truth
Within a certain range of scale, speed and energy, it's an excellent approximation of the truth.
we define "science" as the aggregate consciousness of scientific researchers
This is something I wish I could preach convincingly to everyone. The activity of scientists, a social group, are arguing and trying to convince one another that their interpretation of the data acquired by using their tools and methods is what become a scientific consensus.
Forefronting the method (often a vaguely defined one rooted in a hypo-deductive model from about 150 years ago that most people learned in grade school) removes the relationships between people and other people and people and institutions.
I wish I could find the paper but there's a wonderful enthographic study on how scientists interact with each other to transform the discourse.
I say they do in the same way that I care about the world in general, but I don't think they pay much attention to layfolks for the purposes of their work.
When I pointed this out to a very popular influencer last week I got doxxed by them. Luckily after a week of people trying to fuck with my account they deleted the message.
Everything goes through our brains and therefore filters and interpretations. Science doesn't happen if grants are approved and that usually means someone has something to gain. Even then, results are skewed by method and biases.
Science very much does care about our feelings, both individual and collective, every step of the way. That's why there needs to be special care to take them out as much as possible.
Plus, statistics make up the basis of pretty much all of our science. If you dig into the foundations of stats, you'll find that it's basically just formalizing our feelings. It just happens to be formalized in a way that appears to reflect reality accurately enough to be useful.
In Chile, in 1960, after the great Valdivia earthquake, in a small beach town in southern Chile, to "calm the seas" after the tsunami, a mapuche machi (chilean indigenous people; chaman), did a human sacrifice, killing a little child, they were absolved because they "were acting in accordance of an extreme fear of their gods of their belief", and it angers me always so much that story.
When they tell me to respect other people's believes, I always think of that case, is then OK to kill children if you say is to "calm your angered gods?" Apparently yes, fuck that no I won't accept people believeing in bullshit.
That may be true. However, maybe the world wouldn't be in such a mess, if scientists cared for people's thoughts? Otherwise that is all covered by corporate propaganda.
That’s on the people, not the science, softening facts turns them into lies, science is about objectivity, not preferences. Again, stop being a fucking crybaby about it.
88 replies
Science isn't an ontology, it's a method.
God, what no humanities does to a mf
Reminded me of this.
Exactly. I keep trying to get people to understand that it's a process, just like running is a process.
I have the suspicion, once you're far enough in any field, you'll view as a process what colloquially is considered a binary state. You'll continue talking like it isn't a process, because you don't have the time to explain it all the time.
And a method in which beliefs are important. Not the religious ones, of course, but there are other kinds of beliefs.
Believing that science yields universally true results or is the only method of finding truths, however, is an ontology and something you have to believe.
Edit: I'm not anti-science or anything, just a pedant.
You just described science as though it were a belief system. In reality, science has a presumption that your ideals are false, not true. And a person who could only discover truth through science wouldn't be able to dress or feed themselves.
Here is a video by the channel Dr. Fatima (former astrophysicist) which I think has some intersection with this topic. I may have picked the wrong video though because I haven't watched it in months.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQdTmvqCgxI
I saw this earlier and really wanted to pipe up, but I just couldn't bear it.
"facts don't care about your feelings" energy
Yeah, a tad unfortunate.
explain the problem: irrational criticism & fallacies aren't scientific
I love Lemmy people...
...block first, ask questions later!
Cool: consequence of your outputting irrational comments. I'm still debunking them.
Your propagation of the misinformed confusion of unrelated concepts?
Literally I would not be caught dead drinking from that thing
problem?
seems like you're drawing on a guilt by association fallacy
Is there anyone out there who hates Ben Shapiro and the temperamental cranks who act like their subjective appeals to emotion & outrage have anywhere as much merit as valid, objective arguments that take actual effort? The latter is tiresome, and they absolutely deserve Ben's catchphrase: everyone should be appropriating it to nobler causes than Ben's to annoy him & criticize those irrational twerps.
The placebo effect would like a word.
The placebo effect works even if you know its a placebo tho.
That's medicine. Science just sees it as a problem to be sorted by good study design and statistics
And those studies are going to care about what you believe.
Until you turn your head and stop observing, and then it reverts back to mysticism. :-P
You're referring to quantum effects? Don't worry about whether you're not watching, the universe is watching. If one photon is emitted from the thing in a quantum state and hits anything, that's the observation
Mostly, but it could be more broadly applicable like the placebo effect.
Unless it's like... Sociology, or Psychology. They care what you believe.
What do you mean? Sociology I kind of get, but psychology nowadays is a purely quantitative discipline (despite its subject being squishier than other quantitative sciences).
Haha science takes more faith to believe in than my religion.
/s
I guess prayer and ritual made the device possible, eh?
LOL!
Yep that's the joke, although I should probably have made it more obvious given that it's the internet and there are real people who probably post this sort of stuff sincerely.
LOL! forgot the /s..
Yaahh.. I used to go around on Reddit wth those types all the time! That is one level of ignorance I do not miss by being on lemmy..
/s aside, what it takes to use science is mental discipline, not faith.
Actually, "science" is a human activity and must care about what you think. It's the universe that doesn't care about either.
Sadly a lot of people's beliefs don't give a fuck about science.
This is mostly shared as an arrogant statement towards laymen, but really, it's a reminder for scientists themselves
No matter what you think or believe your experiment should yield, reality check is always waiting around the corner.
Nice, when seen in this light!
Is "Neither do I" written on the bottom?
This feels very 2011
I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE
Needlessly antagonistic, anthropomorphises science... hmm.
That handle is on the wrong side, unless it's for someone who is left handed.
It might be printed on both sides
I want to believe you, but as a scientist I require evidence.
I'm right handed, but often find myself with the cup in my left hand, because I need my dominant hand for high dexterity tasks, like writing, operating computer mouse, etc.
I will accept this task-oriented reply.
Maybe it's a personal reminder to the drinker
Yeah so they can jerk off to their superiority.
I would rather force my opinions on my coworkers
Technically correct since science is a concept and doesn't have feelings, unlike animals, and possibly plants, fungi, all forms of life, who knows, rocks? Idk.
This is "scienceism".
It's referred to as "Scientism".
yr right of course but mine sounds better.
But is light particle or wave?
Yes!
Everything is a wave if you dig deep enough.
At least, as far as we know right now. But the standard model and quantum field theory have been really solid with really precise predictions for many decades at this point. (not any kind of expert here, just find it interesting)
Science isn't a belief system. It's a way of making sense of natural phenomena.
We do not believe that it functions according to predictible rules, we simply look for rules and we have infact found some. That is why we can design a scyscraper and know that it won't topple without trying it out first.
Not quite. Cosmologists accept a certain distribution of predictable phenomena within known parameters while leaving the door open to chaos, outliers, the as of yet unknown and unknowable.
Complexity theory is a model that posits components interact in multiple ways and behave according to local rules. From quantum physics to cosmology and the aspirational yet elusive grand theory of everything, science is prepared for a world weirder than we understand, and possibly weirder than we can understand.
Just because empirical evidence and the development of predictable rules are a very fruitful line of inquiry doesn't mean we believe that is truth.
Philosophers of Science have rather lengthy volumes of work on the subject. I'm just a novice on the topic, but my take on the state of the subject is that we don't accept science and even it's laws as absolute truth, just a very practical, reliable, utilitarian form of inquiry and understanding which includes uncertainty (Heisenberg), probability, complexity and chaos. Scientists are prepared to abandon everything in exchange for something better.
Look at newtonian physics. No one thinks it's the truth, it's just simpler and useful for everyday engineering.
There are rules that govern stochasticity, and especially the behavior of large aggregates of things that indivdually behave stochastically. It's not a tradeoff of 100% locked-down order or headless-chicken chaos. There's a continuum.
Within a certain range of scale, speed and energy, it's an excellent approximation of the truth.
You could have just said "Yeah."
Science is knowledge discovered through the scientific process. Knowledge isn't belief.
This is something I wish I could preach convincingly to everyone. The activity of scientists, a social group, are arguing and trying to convince one another that their interpretation of the data acquired by using their tools and methods is what become a scientific consensus.
Forefronting the method (often a vaguely defined one rooted in a hypo-deductive model from about 150 years ago that most people learned in grade school) removes the relationships between people and other people and people and institutions.
I wish I could find the paper but there's a wonderful enthographic study on how scientists interact with each other to transform the discourse.
Edit: Found it! Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry by Helen E. Longino
This post would be greater with accessibility.
yeah, about that...yer funding...it comes in part from some of those anti-science folk... :/
Science is a field of work, and its participants are able to think. But they don't care what you and me think?
I say they do in the same way that I care about the world in general, but I don't think they pay much attention to layfolks for the purposes of their work.
Hypothesis?
science doesn't care about your feelings.
Sure does. But nature doesn't.
I irony being anyone who owns such mug does give a fuck what you believe.
"Its just my opinion"
No. Science isn't about opinions. Its facts and nothing else.
If you're putting your opinion in science, its no longer science.
When I pointed this out to a very popular influencer last week I got doxxed by them. Luckily after a week of people trying to fuck with my account they deleted the message.
I want this mug
Everything goes through our brains and therefore filters and interpretations. Science doesn't happen if grants are approved and that usually means someone has something to gain. Even then, results are skewed by method and biases.
Science very much does care about our feelings, both individual and collective, every step of the way. That's why there needs to be special care to take them out as much as possible.
Plus, statistics make up the basis of pretty much all of our science. If you dig into the foundations of stats, you'll find that it's basically just formalizing our feelings. It just happens to be formalized in a way that appears to reflect reality accurately enough to be useful.
Science cares if your beliefs make you vote for someone who defunds research.
Well, fuck you too science!
Well I believe the colour purple is real.
I have 2 of these in my cupboard, given to me as a gift on two separate occasions from different people.
It's like they know me or something.
In Chile, in 1960, after the great Valdivia earthquake, in a small beach town in southern Chile, to "calm the seas" after the tsunami, a mapuche machi (chilean indigenous people; chaman), did a human sacrifice, killing a little child, they were absolved because they "were acting in accordance of an extreme fear of their gods of their belief", and it angers me always so much that story.
When they tell me to respect other people's believes, I always think of that case, is then OK to kill children if you say is to "calm your angered gods?" Apparently yes, fuck that no I won't accept people believeing in bullshit.
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrificio_humano_del_5_de_junio_de_1960_en_Chile?wprov=sfla1 here is the Wikipedia of the incident, seemingly there is no English wikipedia, so use translate if you don't know Spanish.
Did it work?
if you mean the legal argument, then yes, the machi wasn't imprisoned.
if you mean the ritual, no, there were replicas for a long time after.
Science is man made, maybe rules of nature?
You don’t know what science is.
That may be true. However, maybe the world wouldn't be in such a mess, if scientists cared for people's thoughts? Otherwise that is all covered by corporate propaganda.
Facts don’t give a fuck about how they make you feel, stop being an overly sensitive crybaby about it.
Caring for the citizen makes for good science communication.
Caring means telling people things they don’t want to hear but need to know. Stop being a fucking crybaby.
Shouldn‘t more people open their minds to scientific facts? What is your problem with that?
That’s on the people, not the science, softening facts turns them into lies, science is about objectivity, not preferences. Again, stop being a fucking crybaby about it.