Anti-Science views?

[Shadowferal]

To make it possible for this discipline to begin, must there not be some prior conviction...? We see that science also rests on faith; there simply is no science "without presuppositions."
"Any account of science which does not explicitly describe it as something we believe in is essentially incomplete and a false pretense."

... from where [does] science [take] its unconditional faith or conviction on which it rests, that truth is more important than any other thing, including every other conviction?... "I will not deceive, not even myself"; and with that we stand on moral ground.
~Nietzsche

[Garnier Fructis]

To make it possible for this discipline to begin, must there not be some prior conviction...? We see that science also rests on faith; there simply is no science "without presuppositions."
"Any account of science which does not explicitly describe it as something we believe in is essentially incomplete and a false pretense."

... from where [does] science [take] its unconditional faith or conviction on which it rests, that truth is more important than any other thing, including every other conviction?... "I will not deceive, not even myself"; and with that we stand on moral ground.
~Nietzsche

Nietzsche's observation is actually really trivial when you think about it. Without base philosophical assumptions, you just end up with infinite regress for basically anything.

Mathematical theories have axioms which are taken to be true, because without those we cannot trust any results at all. Science is sort of similar. There are a few 'axioms' such as 'nature is governed by physical laws' or 'the laws of physics are the same throughout space,' or even the principle of locality. And some hypothesis even challenge or tweak these, since we could imagine multiverses where the laws of physics are different in each universe, or we could imagine non-local theories.

But at the end of the day you have to assume something. This isn't a flaw of science, and it by no means imply that all the deductions which follow depend on faith. This is because theories are relatively robust as a consequence of being guided by observation. So, for example, even though absolute space and absolute time were killed at the turn of the 20th century, Newtonian mechanics survived because we could just reinterpret what it meant in light of different assumptions about the nature of space and time.

[Tic Tacs]

Once a progressive failure starts, it will be over very quickly, so your comment about "short period of time" is just wrong.

Also: the top 30 floors of the south tower DID tip to one side as they started to fall.

Yeah I know, it is just unbelievable how such a huge structure can fall down like a matchstick box and so quickly, makes me want to doubt science.

Controlled demolitions make a fuckton of noise that is entirely absent in the WTC collapses. Compare footage of the Towers against any known controlled detonation. Big Bada Boom. Now, if you (or whoever, really, I don't mean to sound like I'm picking on you specifically) wants to posit some kind of silent bomb, then that's Alex Jones levels of batty.

You are right, I didn't say it was controlled domination that would be stupid.

[Vankrys]

Just the fact how it collapsed, not to the side or partially but vertically, buildings don't usually collapse that way in a short period of time or at least I've never seen one collapse like that unless it was controlled demolition. FDNY:

tall building does collapse vertically. You will never have a tower of this size keeping its integrity and tilting on the side. Gravity exerts a strong forces and building don't have an initial horizontal momentum to describe an arc while collapsing.

In the case of 911, violent fires and extreme temperature have ravaged the building and caused the framework to yield.

[Osmeric]

Yeah I know, it is just unbelievable how such a huge structure can fall down like a matchstick box and so quickly, makes me want to doubt science.

So, why is it unbelievable? How many 100+ floor buildings have you seen collapse? Why do you think your intuitions on such a phenomenon would have any level of accuracy or relevance?

[Endus]

Faith vs REASONABLE expectations. Matt Dillahunty sums it up rather nicely.

Good vid. The best way I've learned to distinguish between the two is by asking a very simple question;

How do you know?

Anyone making their argument on faith, in the religious sense, will eventually boil their argument down to "well, you just have to believe/accept that this is true, because we're telling you it is."

Anyone making their argument of science, or some other fact-based analysis (for fields other than science), will tell you "well, here's the evidence, and here's the methodology, and here's our reasoning as to why we can draw these conclusions from that data. If you want to collect your own data, here's the methodology we used for that and why. We'll give you every single step along the way and you can double-check any part of it you like to try and figure out if we messed up somewhere; we welcome you doing so, because if we did, that's a big deal and we need to fix it. So please, by all means, here's everything; look at it like we did and see what we saw."

It's not remotely the same.

And before anyone says "but scientists take stuff on faith all the time", that's really not true. It's a reasonable expectation of trust; they trust that everyone else who's double-checked the study has done so in good faith, because they have no justification to claim otherwise. If they DID feel otherwise, they could test it themselves. About the only premise that scientists take on anything close to "faith" in the religious sense, is that our capacity to observe produces information that is a representation of reality. In other words, that what we see is real. Because if we can't agree on that principle, then you can't convince me that you actually exist, and thus any conversation is pointless.

[therealbowser]

I don't understand the concept of anti-science. Science is not engineering, it is simply studying how the universe works. The universe won't change how it works just because you choose to ignore it.

Do you mean you are anti-technology? If that's the case, it's odd that you would choose to post on a message board.

Really, what are you trying to get at? I am genuinely confused as to what 'anti-science' would even mean.

If this is a faith-related argument, then I still don't understand. Faith and science do not contradict eachother, since you cannot fully understand either they can intertwine in that grey area that you cannot understand. That said, if your faith is in something that cannot occur, and you cannot prove, if science proves it wrong then perhaps you are wrong about your faith, not that your faith is wrong but you are.

If you believe, for instance, that you can make something catch on fire with your mind, then there is a way to prove that, and if you cannot then clearly you are mistaken about it. Etc.

Remember, the lack of evidence isn't proof that something doesn't exist, but if evidence doesn't support your claims, then you cannot prove it exists, either. In regards to religion, this is why they call it 'faith'.

[Dreyen]

Main problem with "science" is that some of the stuff that gets reported by media is manipulated to look better (ex: read meat increasing colon cancer by 18%... going from a whooping 1 in 1000 chance to 1.18 in 1000 woop dee doo) or they report research that has not been peer reviewed.

Science can never be dethroned by personal opinion, google and terrible youtube videos.

[Calfredd]

Main problem with "science" is that some of the stuff that gets reported by media is manipulated to look better (ex: read meat increasing colon cancer by 18%... going from a whooping 1 in 1000 chance to 1.18 in 1000 woop dee doo) or they report research that has not been peer reviewed.

Science can never be dethroned by personal opinion, google and terrible youtube videos.

Like that xkcd comic about jelly beans?

[Jinpachi]

Care to actually counter the point, or do you actually think you have the capacity to verify every advancement made in the last several hundred years?

Who verified them? Were you there when they were? Or are you trusting what you read from your textbooks?

- - - Updated - - -

Good vid. The best way I've learned to distinguish between the two is by asking a very simple question;

How do you know?

Anyone making their argument on faith, in the religious sense, will eventually boil their argument down to "well, you just have to believe/accept that this is true, because we're telling you it is."

Anyone making their argument of science, or some other fact-based analysis (for fields other than science), will tell you "well, here's the evidence, and here's the methodology, and here's our reasoning as to why we can draw these conclusions from that data. If you want to collect your own data, here's the methodology we used for that and why. We'll give you every single step along the way and you can double-check any part of it you like to try and figure out if we messed up somewhere; we welcome you doing so, because if we did, that's a big deal and we need to fix it. So please, by all means, here's everything; look at it like we did and see what we saw."

It's not remotely the same.

And before anyone says "but scientists take stuff on faith all the time", that's really not true. It's a reasonable expectation of trust; they trust that everyone else who's double-checked the study has done so in good faith, because they have no justification to claim otherwise. If they DID feel otherwise, they could test it themselves. About the only premise that scientists take on anything close to "faith" in the religious sense, is that our capacity to observe produces information that is a representation of reality. In other words, that what we see is real. Because if we can't agree on that principle, then you can't convince me that you actually exist, and thus any conversation is pointless.

There is no reality, only perception

[Glorious Leader]

Nietzsche's observation is actually really trivial when you think about it. Without base philosophical assumptions, you just end up with infinite regress for basically anything.

Mathematical theories have axioms which are taken to be true, because without those we cannot trust any results at all. Science is sort of similar. There are a few 'axioms' such as 'nature is governed by physical laws' or 'the laws of physics are the same throughout space,' or even the principle of locality. And some hypothesis even challenge or tweak these, since we could imagine multiverses where the laws of physics are different in each universe, or we could imagine non-local theories.

But at the end of the day you have to assume something. This isn't a flaw of science, and it by no means imply that all the deductions which follow depend on faith. This is because theories are relatively robust as a consequence of being guided by observation. So, for example, even though absolute space and absolute time were killed at the turn of the 20th century, Newtonian mechanics survived because we could just reinterpret what it meant in light of different assumptions about the nature of space and time.

Causality is another one of these axioms as is mediocrity which you mentioned. Apparently in the quantum world causality may be challenged.

[Klingers]

The main difference between science and religion is one of openness and inquiry.

Strongly religious people rely on faith, group-think, confirmation bias, conservative ideology and institutionalised child molester front groups to shape their beliefs. Once they close ranks around a worldview the only thing that can shake them out of it is some kind of traumatic mental or physical abuse at the hands of the leaders of their organisation.

By contrast science just is. The main difference between science and religion is one of openness and inquiry. Sure you can be attached to an idea or a theory, but if you confront a truly scientific mind with contradictory evidence to something they believe the response will most usually be "That's a shame. Interesting though."

[Glorious Leader]

The main difference between science and religion is one of openness and inquiry.

Strongly religious people rely on faith, group-think, confirmation bias, conservative ideology and institutionalised child molester front groups to shape their beliefs. Once they close ranks around a worldview the only thing that can shake them out of it is some kind of traumatic mental or physical abuse at the hands of the leaders of their organisation.

By contrast science just is. The main difference between science and religion is one of openness and inquiry. Sure you can be attached to an idea or a theory, but if you confront a truly scientific mind with contradictory evidence to something they believe the response will most usually be "That's a shame. Interesting though."

Religious people tend to think that truth is granted through revelation and divination.

Scientists seek truth through discovery.

[Chrysia]

There is no reality, only perception

Oh, you're a solipsist. Never mind.

[Danner]

Do YOU have any views that go against mainstream science? What are they? Why do you have those views?

This question relies on misunderstandings of what science is.

Science is the systematic enterprise to build and organize knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. Or in layman's terms; figure out how shit works.

You do that by following the scientific method. Which is essentially:
1: Making some observations. Specify the observations so that others can repeat them. If I drop this apple, it falls down.
2: Make a theory on how shit works based on the observations. Invisible psychic snails pull apples down to the earth to eat them.
3: Everyone does their darndest to disprove this theory. Fill a room with salt, lethal for any snail. Drop an apple inside it. Does it still fall down? Yes? Then no snails!
Repeat forever. It never stops.

Science isn't proven*. You cannot prove a scientific theory to be true*. At best you can say, that after years of trying we haven't found anything that disproves some scientific theory. That for every input we could possible come up with, the theory gives a result that matches observed reality. That makes that theory useful for predicting how our universe works. But the moment someone does find some observation that disproves the theory, the theory needs more work. So we start the cycle again.

Anyone can repeat an observation. Disbelieving repeatable observations is profoundly silly and takes some next level cool aid. Claiming "I do not believe in gravity" is patently ridiculous, and earns you a mocking laughter anywhere, because it only takes an apple to prove you to not have any idea what you are even talking about. But observations must also be repeatable. "My cousin must have a Guardian Angel due to surviving that car crash" is not a repeatable observation. Unless you are willing to send your cousin through a series of car crashes to prove that point. And I assume you are not.

The scientific theories are more interesting. Disagreeing with a scientific theory is quite possible. Claiming "I do not believe in the Scientific Theory of Gravity" earns you some harder questions. Like "what's wrong with it?". I mean, the scientific theories we have been subject to scrutiny for ages, and work for any known input (if you disregard the places where they explicitly do not*and scientists are still trying to fill out the blanks - like f.ex Dark Matter in terms of the Theory of Gravity). There is no need to switch to a different theory unless it also explains some observation we previously could not explain.

*) Obviously some science is proven using math. But even then that math is based on other scientific theories, which are not proven themselves. All you prove that way is that "if theory A and B are true, then theory C is also true". Which is useful, but more math than science!

--

With that, let me add to the topic. I do not like the idea of Dark Matter. Having to invent some fantasy material we cannot see or interact with, just to make the theory of gravity add up on a universal scale does not sit any better with me than inventing invisible psychic snails to explain gravity on a personal scale. I find it far more realistic that we are misunderstanding the nature of space itself, than that there's a bunch of matter out there that we for some reason just failed to detect. Obviously, if someone someday actually does detect dark matter, then that's the end of that, I'm not gonna argue with repeatable observations. But my gutfeel says all those people searching for Dark Matter in telescopes are wasting their time. But hey, it's their life.

That doesn't mean science is wrong. Just the current direction of investigations on the theory on this particular topic. But it could as well be me. Science doesn't say which is right until someone has an observation.