Philosophy of Science
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-02-2015, 11:14 AM
Philosophy of Science
If anyone is a regular reader of Skeptic Magazine, there is an article in the latest issue titled "The Core Conflict Between Creationism and Evolution: Do Unique Definitions of “Science” and “Proof” Allow Creationists to Disregard Evidence of Evolution?"by Ralph M. Barnes.

It has me thinking about the core philosophy of science, and how (as the above article points out) the religious have tried to hijack the debates related to science into a semantics argument over their definitions of science as opposed to the scientific.

The core of the religious debate (even at a more general level than the creationism v. evolution example the article uses) is about trying to use words in a differing context, allowing them to divert the masses into a false sense of skepticism and rationalism. This is likely not anything new to most of us as creationists fail to understand even the most basic definition of "theory" as it pertains to science.

Here is what I mean (and it is a point raised in the aforementioned article towards the end), by focusing their efforts on defining terms that don't exist (like microevolution, macroevolution, historical science, etc), and by using terms as they are not meant to be used in science (like theory and proof), they give a false sense of authority to their readers/listeners/followers. The religious individual is constantly inundated with these words from a religious perspective, not a scientific one, but they fail to see that as it is the only form of "science" they may know or have ever really been exposed to.

What this sets up is a core philosophy of their view of science that leaves them believing that science is about absolute certainty in proving claims, and that science has admitted its inability to prove something like evolution.




In reality, the core philosophy of science is not about proof in an absolute sense but is instead about a repeated measurement and observation of reality that provides consistent and logical explanations to the aforementioned observations and experiments. This is why some great ideas in science, never gained traction even though they were correct. Charles Darwin was not the first to muse about biological evolution, but he was the first to propose a working mechanism. Alfred Wegner made fantastic observations about the distribution of fossils, rocks, and the shapes of continents before we understood Plate Tectonics, but Wegner's idea never gained traction because he couldn't provide a working mechanism for continental movement.

Science isn't mere observation, it must be consistent and logical. Testable and falsifiable. Demonstrable and understandable. In short, it is the exact opposite of religious beliefs.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
14-02-2015, 01:39 PM
RE: Philosophy of Science
I'm not worried about the yoof of today.

They get faith-speak definitions and then go off to college / university and find out they were lied to / misled.

Result... doubt, inquiry, re-evaluation and de-conversion.

I'm not too worries about the oldies either ... no one lives forever.

What concrens me are those who do not get the opportunity of access to knowledge. Myth-based schools, or Faith schools, as they called in the UK are the breeding ground for ignorance.

But then again, McDonald's needs to get staff from somewhere.

Dodgy

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2015, 01:59 PM
RE: Philosophy of Science
Finding the lowest common denominator to explain what science is and what it isn’t is where we’ve come to with the religious.

Hit your thumb with a hammer.
Did it hurt?
Yes.
Do it again.
No.
Why not?
It hurt like hell!

Science!

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
14-02-2015, 02:54 PM
RE: Philosophy of Science
(14-02-2015 01:59 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Finding the lowest common denominator to explain what science is and what it isn’t is where we’ve come to with the religious.

Hit your thumb with a hammer.
Did it hurt?
Yes.
Do it again.
No.
Why not?
It hurt like hell!

Science!

As opposed to:

Prayed for something.
Didn't work.
Prayed again.
Didn't work.
Prayed again.
Didn't work.
Prayed again.
Didn't work.
Wash, rinse, repeat. And tell others they should do the same.
Why?
Cuz gawd.

Religion!

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
14-02-2015, 03:40 PM
RE: Philosophy of Science
(14-02-2015 02:54 PM)Anjele Wrote:  As opposed to:

Prayed for something.
Didn't work.
Prayed again.
Didn't work.
Prayed again.
Didn't work.
Prayed again.
Didn't work.
Wash, rinse, repeat. And tell others they should do the same.
Why?
Cuz gawd.

Religion!

I thought you were going to say:

Closes eyes.
Prays for a McDonald’s sign.
Opens eyes.
McDonald’s sign delivered.
Gawd!

Closes eyes.
Prays for world peace.
Opens eyes.
Holy shit everyone is still killing one another.
Closes brain.
Gawd!

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
14-02-2015, 04:40 PM
RE: Philosophy of Science
(14-02-2015 02:54 PM)Anjele Wrote:  
(14-02-2015 01:59 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Finding the lowest common denominator to explain what science is and what it isn’t is where we’ve come to with the religious.

Hit your thumb with a hammer.
Did it hurt?
Yes.
Do it again.
No.
Why not?
It hurt like hell!

Science!

As opposed to:

Prayed for something.
Didn't work.
Prayed again.
Didn't work.
Prayed again.
Didn't work.
Prayed again.
Didn't work.
Wash, rinse, repeat. And tell others they should do the same.
Why?
Cuz gawd.

Religion!

Actually it is more like:

Pray
God no answer
Pray again
God no answer

Hmmmm....maybe God is answering my prayer by not answering my prayer. Therefore, by not answering my prayer, God is answering my prayer.

#Religion

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2015, 04:41 PM
RE: Philosophy of Science
(14-02-2015 01:39 PM)DLJ Wrote:  I'm not worried about the yoof of today.

They get faith-speak definitions and then go off to college / university and find out they were lied to / misled.

Result... doubt, inquiry, re-evaluation and de-conversion.

I'm not too worries about the oldies either ... no one lives forever.

What concrens me are those who do not get the opportunity of access to knowledge. Myth-based schools, or Faith schools, as they called in the UK are the breeding ground for ignorance.

But then again, McDonald's needs to get staff from somewhere.

Dodgy

As someone who tries to teach and help college students, I can safely say I constantly worry about them. They don't understand that science isn't about absolutes, so they get mad when I tell them that there isn't any one correct answer to some questions. They just get confused and frustrated.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2015, 04:47 PM
RE: Philosophy of Science
(14-02-2015 04:41 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  ...
so they get mad
...

Are they 4 year olds?

Aren't they excited by the idea that they could be the ones who will come up with the best explanation?

We, as educators, are taking them on a journey. At some point we will become too tired / old to continue and they will take the lead.

You are grooming them for leadership.

Absolutely thrilling n'est pas?

Wink

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2015, 04:52 PM
RE: Philosophy of Science
(14-02-2015 04:47 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(14-02-2015 04:41 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  ...
so they get mad
...

Are they 4 year olds?

Aren't they excited by the idea that they could be the ones who will come up with the best explanation?

We, as educators, are taking them on a journey. At some point we will become too tired / old to continue and they will take the lead.

You are grooming them for leadership.

Absolutely thrilling n'est pas?

Wink

It is very exciting when they want to learn, and very frustrating when they are only there because they think that education is about showing up and filling in blanks and then getting a grade that certifies them as educated.

Students don't understand grades, or assignments, or education. At least not most of them sadly.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2015, 04:53 PM
RE: Philosophy of Science
(14-02-2015 04:52 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(14-02-2015 04:47 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Are they 4 year olds?

Aren't they excited by the idea that they could be the ones who will come up with the best explanation?

We, as educators, are taking them on a journey. At some point we will become too tired / old to continue and they will take the lead.

You are grooming them for leadership.

Absolutely thrilling n'est pas?

Wink

It is very exciting when they want to learn, and very frustrating when they are only there because they think that education is about showing up and filling in blanks and then getting a grade that certifies them as educated.

Students don't understand grades, or assignments, or education. At least not most of them sadly.

Do you think it has to do with years of studying for the sole purpose of passing standardized tests?

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: