seanie

It depends how you take the original claim.

The key word is understanding.

Sure I can operate in the world on a day to day basis without using 'science'.

But if I'm going to understand the natural world I'm living science is the way to do it.

And even on a day to day basis I use methodological naturalism and empirical experience, the cornerstones of science.

It may be fast and loose but I still utilise a version of the scientific method all the time.

NialScorva

It's been said already, but I'll put my spin on it. What you described is a trivial conclusion you made based upon empirical observation and the presumption of naturalistic causes. It's trivialized science, much the same as 1+1=2 is trivialized math or "See spot run" is trivialized literature.

ex-xian

Is science able to proof its own reliability?

If it can, we then have a meta-science to show the validity of science; but then we would need a meta-meta-science, ad infinitum.

If not, then on what basis is science's claim to reality or truth?

galiel

Science does not make a claim to "reality or truth". Thus, science does not need to "prove" is infallibility, because science does not claim to be infallible. Science merely claims that its methodology most effectively yields useful models of universal principles effecting human experience. Science is abbout approximations, not dogmas, which is why the basic tenets of our current understanding of the world are called "theories" not "truths".

What is the basis for science's claim to effectiveness? Results.

ex-xian

These statements seem contradictory. What is a "universal principle" other than a claim to explain the way things are?

So you are claiming that science is based in pragmatism? If that is the case, I deny relativty, quantum mechanics, and Rheimannian geometry; Newtonian mechanics and Euclidean geometry produce all necessary results that I need.

Furthermore...
This sounds like the anti-evolutionists claiming that evolution shouldn't be taught in school because it's only a theory. A theory, as you know I'm sure, have been verified empirically over and over. A theory is indeed a claim as to the nature of reality.

Please don't misinterpret my questions. I'm not anti-science. My all time non-fiction book is "The Demon Haunted World." I just believe we need to examine everything we believe for all the consequences that the beliefs entail. If science is not subject to it's own tests, why is it so special?

Shadowy Man

xianseeker:

Fine, then give up your computer, CD Player, GPS sensor, medical x-rays, MRI, and please ignore any information you see about space travel, astronomy,
weather forecasting. Need I go on?

ex-xian

Thank you for proving my point so clearly. If pragmatism is the basis of science, then before the need for these things came about, the science behind them didn't exist. The physics and math was invented to fill that need. Or perhaps the math was invented, and then a purpose was found for it (which was the case with matrix algebra and quantum phyics).

Futhermore, for primitive societies that do not concern themselves with technology, the sciences are not reflections or even approximations of reality until a need arises that the technology/science will fill. In effect, the science is created again to meets the needs of that culture.

[ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: xianseeker ]</p>

Shadowy Man

Yeah, so? I guess I'm not sure what your point is.

As Galiel said:

The laws of physics are just a model of how the universe works. The degree to which they accurately describe the way the universe works is measured by their ability to predict and explain actual observations of how the universe is working.

galiel

A more careful reading of my statement would make clear that I said science seeks to develop useful models, not definitive explanations. All suppositions in science are provisional and subject to correction and refutation.
No, I claim that "Science is about approximations, not dogmas"

Please respond to what I actually post, rather than restating it incorrectly and then responding to what you created.
[quote]<strong>This sounds like the anti-evolutionists claiming that evolution shouldn't be taught in school because it's only a theory. </strong>[quote] No, you sound like those who seek to claim that science is a religion because it states ifferutable doctrine.

Incorrect, by any prevailing definition of theory in the scientific community. A theory does not suddenly emerge as the result of a revelation or discovery. Cummulative consistent evidence supporting a supposition eventually overwhelms properly skeptical objections, eventually promoting it to the status of "theory".

Theories are never "verified" (from the root veritas, "truth"). Evidence continues to corroborate a theory, which justifies its persistence. If a theory were fact, there would be no need to continue to perform experimentation and observation in order to corroborate it, would there?

Once again, you invent imaginary dragons, attempt to slay them with your theoretical light-saber, and proclaim, "I've rescued the maiden!"

You should reread it. You seem to have skipped the chapters about the nature of science and the scientific method.

Determining the validity of a conclusion (what you call a "belief") based upon its consequences is thought-control. It presupposed either a central authority or a supernatural standard, neither subject to question, against which one must measure empirical evidence, and then suggests discarding such evidence if it does not accord with authority.

This is the very antithesis of science. If you support it, you are, in fact, anti-science.

1) Science is not an "it", as in a single entity subject to proof or disproof. Science is a process. One of the tenets of science is, in fact, to repeatedly and continuously subject its conclusions to tests using scientific metholodogy.

2) Science does not claim to be "so special". Science is not a "Saturday-Night Live!" parody of a gay interior decorator. Advocates of the scientific method merely claim that it is effective, in fact, the by FAR the most effective way to derive a practical understanding of reality which, however partial and incomplete, nonetheless has proven its utility to better the human condition.

Or, as I said initially, a point you selectively chose not to challenge, science bases its claim to be effective on its "RESULTS".

[ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

NialScorva

And the results are measured by a pragmatic standard-- if it accomplishes the needs (predictive/explanatory), then it's the truth. How is this not a pragmatic measure?