Why SCIENCE is the New Irrational RELIGION
(Video description)
Science is about sense data, empiricism and induction. Science is an empirical system which is opposed to rationalism. This cannot be stressed enough, science is not about reason, science privileges empiricism. The definition of empiricism is “the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from sense experience.” Whereas rationalism is the doctrine that all knowledge is based on reason and not on religious faith or sense experience.
These two views are opposites and never forget that science is an empirical system, not a rational system. Furthermore science is inductive whereas our system is deductive. Deduction is a method of reasoning that guarantees 100% that the conclusion is true no matter what.
While induction is a method based on repeated tests that only ever give a probability of something being true, no matter how good the inductive test are it always has the probability of being wrong. Deduction is about guaranteed truth while induction only gives a probability of being true.
20 comments
" Science is an empirical system which is opposed to rationalism. This cannot be stressed enough, science is not about reason, science privileges empiricism. The definition of empiricism is “the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from sense experience.” Whereas rationalism is the doctrine that all knowledge is based on reason and not on religious faith or sense experience. "
image
"Logic, logic, logic. Logic is not the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end."
- Mr. Spock, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
BTW, his proposed replacement seems to be some kind of mathemysticism full of New Age quantum mysticism buzzwords.
You're goshdarned right science is an empirical system. You asses the data available and form hypotheses that you test rigorously. Assess new data, repeat. Cross reference available data with data from other scientific disciplines, if applicable, and form tentative conclusions that you will modify in the presence of new data. You don't rationalize your way in the direction of advancing scientific knowledge.
science is not about reason, science privileges empiricism.
And with just those eight words, you proved that the rest of your little speech is bullshit devoid of any value beyond the comedic. Little tip for the future: don't lead with the stupidest thing you can think of.
At one time the bible guys were claiming "Science proves the bible! We have evidence!" But now that claim has been refuted so many times, the bible guys have come up with this new level of attack: "Evidence is bad! You've got to experience god in 'different' ways!"
Then we have this bozo who cannot decide what the definitions of "sense" or "reason" are, not to mention "deduction" and "truth".
Computer: 'What is Kiri-Kin-Tha's First Law of Metaphysics?'
Spock (Leonard Nimoy): 'Nothing unreal exists.'
Computer: Correct.
-"Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home"
Lessgue, I'm sure you would agree that it is true that a rainbow doesn't physically exist.
image
Empirical, rational science - based on Observation - kinda puts you in a paradox, does it not...?!
So-called 'Truth' has been given an almighty kick in the bollocks by just the above.
As the modern-day Sherlock Holmes would say 'I don't guess, I observe. And when I have observed, I deduce .'
When you can observe that which doesn't physically exist, then it exposes your actual 'Faith' masquerade like the curtain pulled open to reveal a pathetic little man who has to relie on illusions to maintain his credibility. [/"Wizard of Oz"]
@Alencon :
Exactly. Mathematics and logic are of limited value on their own - they only tell us what would be the case if certain premises are true, not whether these premises are actually true in the real world. To judge this, we need data gathered from the real world, or "sense experience" (groan), as Lucian Malfoy calls it.
Idiocies not appearing in the descriptions:
- He claims that "Scientific Materialism" will appear just as "primitive and childish" to future generations as creation myths appear to us - demonstrating that, like all anti-science cranks, he does not get the distinction between science as a methodological framework and our current scientific knowledge .
- He claims classical mechanics is "completely and utterly false", rather than a very good model with a limited scope.
- He dismisses the success of science in developing technology with correlation not equaling causation, comparing it to prayer.
Basically, it's an ivory basement pseudointellectual who overthinks things he does not actually understand and confuses this with profound criticism.
Except that he is also a (hopefully wannabe) cult leader who believes in some kind of mathematical mysticism.
@SomeApe :
What a pompous fuckwit.
LessWrong: Everything bad about internet atheism concentrated in one personality cult.
@DoubtingThomas,
Well, it is true that science does not follow rationalism - re. great philosophical debates of XVII century, modern scientific paradigm is firmly on the empiricism's side. But that does not mean "science is irrational" in common meaning of the word. Quaternio terminorum and false equivocation at its finest.
@ShepardSolus
Well, he IS right. Science does privilege empiricism, in that it posits sensual account of physical reality ("I see that experiment failed!") and not reason ("or perhaps your senses were fooled!") as the arbiter of truth. Reason, however, not in the common meaning of the word ("it stands to reason that the experiment failed") but in philosophical one ("your starting point should be existence of your reason, nothing else is a given"). He muddies the water, in other words.
@Alencon
Well, not really. I would say that deduction works perfectly well within mathematics, but also within other creations of human mind (I consider maths to be one of them, but that's another discussion). Consider, if I write a book, describing a fictional world, I have all the power traditionally ascribed to Abrahamic God in respect to its imaginary denizens. I know all. I am the guarantor of deduction. Of course this has hardly any effect on our shared physical reality, but neither does deduction in maths prove deduction in physics.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.