Does Science = Truth?
Does science equal truth? (Nietzsche's Critique of Scientific Positivism)
Watch Video
Does science equal truth? (Nietzsche's Critique of Scientific Positivism)
Watch Video
I'd argue that it isn't just limited to 'humanity'. While we have yet to find advanced self-aware life forms other than ourselves I can imagine that any being with the capacity to recognize their own mortality would try to find a 'greater' meaning with some desperation. After all, death is not only the great 'motivator' it is also the great nullifier.Devieus said:To seek one at all is really just the flaw of our humanity
I would argue that religion isn't necessary at all. Sure, it gives people a sense of 'purpose' but A. Said purpose is a fabricated one and B. It propagates a lie. It keeps this house of cards stuck together without trying to fix anything.hence why religion is a necessary evil, and due to humanity's flawed nature, any religion or replacement thereof is flawed in a different set of morals e.g. Islam vs Hinduism, spiritualism vs naturalism, humanism vs animal wrongs groups.
What qulifes this as a flaw though?Devieus said:to assume humans are a grand feature of the universe that we deserve purpose, meaning, or destination. To seek one at all is really just the flaw of our humanity
The study in question found that acupuncture works in managing some COPD symptoms because anxiety can exacerbate COPD symptoms, ergo procedures to manage anxiety can provide some relief. In general, that stress can exacerbate the symptoms of many heart, lung, and psychiatric conditions has never been in question. It is, at most, a part of a "lifestyle management" program that can help a COPD patient, but it is not a treatment for COPD. Plus, I don't think you need to be that much of a scientist to be bothered by the prospect of the CAM-pushers putting people's health at risk to make a buck.Callate said:I'm also reminded that for many "science" does indeed become dogma. My self-proclaimed "scientist" friend wrote a long Facebook screed decrying a list of "pseudo-medical" treatments like homeopathy... and acupuncture. In literally two minutes I was able to look up a peer-reviewed study that confirmed acupuncture performed better in treating COPD than placebo.
Uncertainty is something that a lot of people misunderstand, and it's to be expected really. What you need to know is that the uncertainty relations do not mean that there is some mystical and impenetrable veil of mystery enshrouding physics at the atomic level but rather it's just one way that physics at that level obey very different rules from physics at the levels we are used to thinking about; it is not that something is obscured from us. It's not hidden variables, it's a chaotic randomness that's just an underlying component of nature at that scale. It does not impose a limit to our understanding, it adds to our understanding by informing us of an elementary part of the behavior of subatomic particles.Science, logic, and mathematics all teach us that there are things we literally cannot know, through things like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, Fitch's paradox of knowability, and Gödel's incompleteness theorems. We would be wise, while
I find that amusing given the very myopic definition of philosophy you have to use to make the distinction you are.Baresark said:It's always very strange applying philosophical ideas to science. Science is not, by definition, truth. Science is observation and in many cases projections of what reality is based on a smaller set of evidence than is necessary to say with absolute certainty. Science, at the time of inceptions of a given scientific idea, only offers probability of what reality is.
I partially agree with him in that many people treat science as a religion. It will hold absolute sway over their lives just like church does in a strict Catholic household. But that is not the majority by any stretch. At the end of the day, Science and Philosophy don't even seek the same things. Science shows what can be proven(at least a the majority of it does), philosophy is what asks about meaning or truth or God. There is no overlap in this.
Science is probability to fact, philosophy is always personal truth. Sometimes people find overlap, many times they do not.
That's a common misconception.Spyre2k said:The argument of the video is that science can't explain why or meaning behind things and thus it's can't reveal truth. But why and meaning are things open to interpretation and are subjective things, just like any other opinion.
Where as truth is something that is factually correct. Like it is true if I drop a baseball while standing on stop of the Empire State Building it will fall down. Science is based on logic, and in order for logic to work you need to be able to determine if a statement is true or false. Without the ability to determine truth we would not have science.
The mistake people make is the one mentioned at the end of the video. By mistaking scientific truth as meaning or purpose for why something is. But true science makes no meaning or morality judgements on anything, it only states what things are not what does it mean for them to be that way.
The real question is can science ever provide meaning to our lives, you just need to replace truth with meaning everywhere in the video because that is really the argument they are making. And I think they do a good job of it as science can't provide meaning to our lives since it is a purely subjective thing.
I'm fully aware of how science is a branch of philosophy. It would be pointless for me to identify them as completely different things, something I did not do. But, historically, science from say 500 years ago is vastly different from what it is today. I'm not referring to the amount of known scientific knowledge either. That is clearly far different now than it was then. Science, it's highest form, used to look down on material evidence. Anyone who used scientific evidence was in fact thought to be bad at it as it is best performed in the mind of the scientist. That is utterly different from the science we know today of course.CrystalShadow said:I find that amusing given the very myopic definition of philosophy you have to use to make the distinction you are.Baresark said:It's always very strange applying philosophical ideas to science. Science is not, by definition, truth. Science is observation and in many cases projections of what reality is based on a smaller set of evidence than is necessary to say with absolute certainty. Science, at the time of inceptions of a given scientific idea, only offers probability of what reality is.
I partially agree with him in that many people treat science as a religion. It will hold absolute sway over their lives just like church does in a strict Catholic household. But that is not the majority by any stretch. At the end of the day, Science and Philosophy don't even seek the same things. Science shows what can be proven(at least a the majority of it does), philosophy is what asks about meaning or truth or God. There is no overlap in this.
Science is probability to fact, philosophy is always personal truth. Sometimes people find overlap, many times they do not.
Take a look through history some time and you'll note that science (and mathematics) are, in fact a form of philosophy. They are the philosophical arts. That subset of philosophy that by chance happens to have the most practical applications...
That practicality aside, they are still the same as any other philosophy in form. To argue that they are distinct from the subject they are a subset of is somewhat absurd.
That's not up to me to say, I'd just guess that considering the size of the universe, such life forms may very well exist, but that same size makes that statement moot for us in our lifetime. Maybe we could ask the dolphins or the octopuses what they think of this though.DerangedHobo said:I'd argue that it isn't just limited to 'humanity'. While we have yet to find advanced self-aware life forms other than ourselves I can imagine that any being with the capacity to recognize their own mortality would try to find a 'greater' meaning with some desperation. After all, death is not only the great 'motivator' it is also the great nullifier.
I know it's a lie, you know it's a lie, most people here probably know it's a lie, but not everyone is as strong-willed enough to live without this nonsense. Case in point is the growing numbers of Daesh.I would argue that religion isn't necessary at all. Sure, it gives people a sense of 'purpose' but A. Said purpose is a fabricated one and B. It propagates a lie. It keeps this house of cards stuck together without trying to fix anything.
Trying to come off as more than we really are is not exactly a virtue, it's hubris, it's what empowers mad or greedy people by claiming they have the answer.zerragonoss said:What qulifes this as a flaw though?Devieus said:to assume humans are a grand feature of the universe that we deserve purpose, meaning, or destination. To seek one at all is really just the flaw of our humanity