One thing I've noticed: Dawkins actually isn't very enlightened. On the subjects he knows, evolutionary biology, memetics, (physics maybe?) he can hold his own. But he demonstrates a lack of understanding of philosophy, so he mistakes the scientific narrative for reality.
Also, no one needs to stand up for Atheists as a collective. I've lived my whole life as an Atheist (aside from all the Apotheosis) and I can't think of a real case where I needed to be defended for my Atheism.
Science is "something" + figures. But "facts" is not the right word. There are no "facts" in science, only observations and conjectures.
Conjectures are tested against nature through experimentation; the MOST IMPORTANT step in our search for what we call "truth" but again, that word is not correct.
What we have are varying degrees of certainty about our hypothesis, but no absolute truth is attainable since by definition all scientific theory *must be* disprovable.
Are you familiar with Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper? Because when I watch James Burke's The day the Universe Change it reminds me a lot about some of the general ideas of Thomas Kuhn, the ideas go through a paradigm shift. I just found out that there's philosophy of science, and it amazes me because it evaluates some of the assumptions of science (like David Hume did with causality).
Through that evaluation people actually argue or debate about the most reliable and realistic method, and the funny thing is is that no one really agrees in every detail. Thomas Kuhn once said that "truth" is really decided in one paradigm by general consensus. It kind of surprised because when I think about scientist I think about people like Richard Dawkins who insist that there is a scientific "truth"
And I start to watch BBC news on physics, and there are people who have tried to develop certain theories (Dark Matter, Dark Energy, etc.) and had their own "evidence" and reasoning, but they were dumped because the scientific community simply wasn't "interested". I remember that some theories like the string theory was criticized as not being "science" but philosophy since "strings" were impossible to empirical verification.
There are epistemological theory in science such as theory of correspondence and theory of coherence, and people begin to debate and argue over each other as to which theory is more reliable and "realistic", I just assumed that scientist rely on the same principles and methods, both practically and theoretically.
Good scientists simply accept exactly what the universe happens to be. It would be nice if there were universal laws that applied to everything. That's the assumption anyway, but if that's not evidently the case then we have to accept whatever chaos we observe. So far it has turned out that there are underlying simplifications that describe a vast array of seeming complex scenarios. But it doesn't *have* to be that way.
Or when Einstein disproved Newton's theory of gravity when he said light is the fastest thing in the universe (Newton's theory implied that Gravity was faster), and when a group of physicist developed quantum physics and sort of gave Einstein a problem because he assumed that the universe was static and unchangeable.
Newton had nothing to say about the speed of gravitational interaction. The assumption was that time was not involved at all (ie. that the interaction was a property of inertial bodies and their distance ONLY). There's no 't' in Newton's universal law of gravitation.
I might add that Newton was dismayed over the universal law of gravitation as it demonstrated what was considered to be an absurdity at the time. That physical bodies could interact without being in direct contact.
Anyways, I just wanted to talk about because it a lot of what James Burke says in his program really reminds me about a lot of the things that I just said in my comments, that "Truth" is simply a bunch of verified and accepted conjectures and hypothesis.
There *is* convergence in science. It's not like suddenly everything changed when Einstein corrected Newton. We still use Newtonian physics to build bridges, and design missiles and so on. From a descriptive point of view, it's not "wrong" it's just not the whole story.
Philosophy is important in many ways, but true science does experiments to see if what is said is true. Science means "knowledge" and even there were philosophers thought importance to it. Scientific method forming scientific theories from a formal system of rules. Then observations that in capability to proove things to be true through ways forming scientific laws. That is what I ment but I have trouble finding words sometimes.
Yes, that is not correct. There is no such thing as a scientific "fact" or "proof" of anything. The basis of science is that the universe is final arbiter. It is an evidence-based view of the world and all scientific theory is subject to change (must be in fact). Current scientific theory is the set of laws which have NOT been *disproved* by experiment and investigation, but are carefully structured to allow for that possibility (of being disproved). Otherwise such laws would be "unreal".
Sorry, I guess I should have said "not entirely correct".
It's not a matter of proving things to be true, but finding systems that, as far as we can tell, are not false.
All scientific laws and theories are subject to alteration so in that sense there is no such thing as scientific "fact". Only hypotheses and varying degrees of certainty on them.
Yes. In fact I think the word comes from latin (checking)...
Wiki's most general definition:
Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers in its broadest sense to any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice.
--
I definitely disagree with the characterization of "prescriptive" for *modern* science. Will look more...
What I mean is modern science is not prescriptive in character even though any scientific theory must be "predictive" (disprovable through experimentation).
Science as a whole however, is "descriptive" in nature in that it does not seek to impose any specific structure on Nature, but instead to discover any underlying structure should it exist.
Of course a theory is prescriptive so the *practice of science* may have that character but science itself does not.
Wonder why Burke is ragging on Ven so much....it's quite a popular summer tourist destination for mainlander Swedes.
TheLastBrainLeft 7 months ago
(inaudible) = Brahe
gerrymoran1 8 months ago
@JBW
Why do you think Dawkins is crazy?
Just because he painted a giant bull's eye on his back?
Somebody needs to stand up for us atheists. The theists are a bunch of brain-washed bullys who always get their way, at least here in the USA.
Thanks for putting this videos up btw, especially in organized playlists that make them so easy to watch.
Primalxbeast 1 year ago 2
@Primalxbeast
One thing I've noticed: Dawkins actually isn't very enlightened. On the subjects he knows, evolutionary biology, memetics, (physics maybe?) he can hold his own. But he demonstrates a lack of understanding of philosophy, so he mistakes the scientific narrative for reality.
Also, no one needs to stand up for Atheists as a collective. I've lived my whole life as an Atheist (aside from all the Apotheosis) and I can't think of a real case where I needed to be defended for my Atheism.
Jcolinsol 1 year ago
Science is just facts and figures nothing more. Facts do not lie but then they say very little in an of themselves.
It is ultimately up to us to determine what facts really mean.
Math says that 2+2=4...but what exactly does it mean? Does it even mean anything at all?
spectre111 2 years ago
Not *really*.
Science is "something" + figures. But "facts" is not the right word. There are no "facts" in science, only observations and conjectures.
Conjectures are tested against nature through experimentation; the MOST IMPORTANT step in our search for what we call "truth" but again, that word is not correct.
What we have are varying degrees of certainty about our hypothesis, but no absolute truth is attainable since by definition all scientific theory *must be* disprovable.
- JBW
JamesBurkeWeb 2 years ago
Are you familiar with Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper? Because when I watch James Burke's The day the Universe Change it reminds me a lot about some of the general ideas of Thomas Kuhn, the ideas go through a paradigm shift. I just found out that there's philosophy of science, and it amazes me because it evaluates some of the assumptions of science (like David Hume did with causality).
Philonus 2 years ago
Through that evaluation people actually argue or debate about the most reliable and realistic method, and the funny thing is is that no one really agrees in every detail. Thomas Kuhn once said that "truth" is really decided in one paradigm by general consensus. It kind of surprised because when I think about scientist I think about people like Richard Dawkins who insist that there is a scientific "truth"
Philonus 2 years ago
I have come to detest Richard Dawkins. Though I still love his first book "the selfish gene". After that he kinda went nuts ;)
JamesBurkeWeb 2 years ago
And I start to watch BBC news on physics, and there are people who have tried to develop certain theories (Dark Matter, Dark Energy, etc.) and had their own "evidence" and reasoning, but they were dumped because the scientific community simply wasn't "interested". I remember that some theories like the string theory was criticized as not being "science" but philosophy since "strings" were impossible to empirical verification.
Philonus 2 years ago
There are epistemological theory in science such as theory of correspondence and theory of coherence, and people begin to debate and argue over each other as to which theory is more reliable and "realistic", I just assumed that scientist rely on the same principles and methods, both practically and theoretically.
Philonus 2 years ago
Good scientists simply accept exactly what the universe happens to be. It would be nice if there were universal laws that applied to everything. That's the assumption anyway, but if that's not evidently the case then we have to accept whatever chaos we observe. So far it has turned out that there are underlying simplifications that describe a vast array of seeming complex scenarios. But it doesn't *have* to be that way.
- JBW
JamesBurkeWeb 2 years ago
@JamesBurkeWeb
*cough*general semantics*cough*
Jcolinsol 1 year ago
Or when Einstein disproved Newton's theory of gravity when he said light is the fastest thing in the universe (Newton's theory implied that Gravity was faster), and when a group of physicist developed quantum physics and sort of gave Einstein a problem because he assumed that the universe was static and unchangeable.
Philonus 2 years ago
Newton had nothing to say about the speed of gravitational interaction. The assumption was that time was not involved at all (ie. that the interaction was a property of inertial bodies and their distance ONLY). There's no 't' in Newton's universal law of gravitation.
I might add that Newton was dismayed over the universal law of gravitation as it demonstrated what was considered to be an absurdity at the time. That physical bodies could interact without being in direct contact.
JamesBurkeWeb 2 years ago
Anyways, I just wanted to talk about because it a lot of what James Burke says in his program really reminds me about a lot of the things that I just said in my comments, that "Truth" is simply a bunch of verified and accepted conjectures and hypothesis.
Philonus 2 years ago
Truth has meaning, but only "as a direction".
There *is* convergence in science. It's not like suddenly everything changed when Einstein corrected Newton. We still use Newtonian physics to build bridges, and design missiles and so on. From a descriptive point of view, it's not "wrong" it's just not the whole story.
- JBW
JamesBurkeWeb 2 years ago
Philosophy versus Science. Science is prooving anything to be true. Then science with the same experiments will always be true.
Chamelionroses 2 years ago
I have no clue what you're saying here. Can you clarify?
- JBW
JamesBurkeWeb 2 years ago
Philosophy is important in many ways, but true science does experiments to see if what is said is true. Science means "knowledge" and even there were philosophers thought importance to it. Scientific method forming scientific theories from a formal system of rules. Then observations that in capability to proove things to be true through ways forming scientific laws. That is what I ment but I have trouble finding words sometimes.
Chamelionroses 2 years ago
Yes, that is not correct. There is no such thing as a scientific "fact" or "proof" of anything. The basis of science is that the universe is final arbiter. It is an evidence-based view of the world and all scientific theory is subject to change (must be in fact). Current scientific theory is the set of laws which have NOT been *disproved* by experiment and investigation, but are carefully structured to allow for that possibility (of being disproved). Otherwise such laws would be "unreal".
- JBW
JamesBurkeWeb 2 years ago
Sorry, I guess I should have said "not entirely correct".
It's not a matter of proving things to be true, but finding systems that, as far as we can tell, are not false.
All scientific laws and theories are subject to alteration so in that sense there is no such thing as scientific "fact". Only hypotheses and varying degrees of certainty on them.
- JBW
JamesBurkeWeb 2 years ago
Science is a branch of philosophy.
squeezetruck 2 years ago
Yes. In fact I think the word comes from latin (checking)...
Wiki's most general definition:
Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers in its broadest sense to any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice.
--
I definitely disagree with the characterization of "prescriptive" for *modern* science. Will look more...
JamesBurkeWeb 2 years ago
What I mean is modern science is not prescriptive in character even though any scientific theory must be "predictive" (disprovable through experimentation).
Science as a whole however, is "descriptive" in nature in that it does not seek to impose any specific structure on Nature, but instead to discover any underlying structure should it exist.
Of course a theory is prescriptive so the *practice of science* may have that character but science itself does not.
- JBW
JamesBurkeWeb 2 years ago