Maybe members could have some engaging off-topic discussions in this thread, but the rational of James’ point can be disregarded by pointing out a single very basic flaw, which Carleas has already done–with admirable patience–several times, from several angles.
First:
Very simple.
“Science” can be defined (can be and is) in various ways, but every rational definition of science–every meaning that stresses that which distinguishes it from that which is not science– is based on (and is only actually understood in the context of the primary goal of) being able to know that (a given condition) A (reliably) results in B.
That is all science is. The only goal/ideal (inherent in its meaning) is acquiring the knowledge necessary to know what reliably (and necessarily) precedes and proceeds some phenomenon.
Man may do/use science with(/in light of) or for their own motivations and values, but if the process (their collecting data, doing experiments and interpreting their conclusions, making hypothesis, etc.) results in the reliable knowledge that A (in some condition) causes B, it is “Science”, plain and simple; one’s beliefs and values have an affect on what they choose to understand (and predict, manipulate and bring about) with science, but that has nothing to do with the quality of the science (which is judged solely on the value of reliably predicting the necessary causes and/or inevitable effects of some A).
This so clearly demonstrates that James isn’t going to take in any valid criticism of his point (in this thread, at least…).
Carleas points out that James is making the mistake of focusing his criticism on “Science”–saying “science does this” and “science does that”, when those criticisms don’t apply to science; his use(s) of the word (“Science”) don’t even make sense, given the coherent, communicable meaning of Science (based on a systematic knowledge leading to predictions of phenomenon).
James replies “That is exactly my point”, but it wasn’t. He alters his arguments slightly afterwards, differentiating an “ideal” of science as the “true” science, but it’s clear he only obtained a surface understanding of Carleas’ criticisms.
It’s ironic…James’ point results from his observations of scientists (and other “credible” sources of “science news”) making irrational or biased statements, “supporting” them with statements like “science tells us that…” and “based on scientific evidence”–this does happen, and it is a valid criticism (science doesn’t “say” anything except B reliably results from conditions A).
However, he suffers from the same problem he is trying to criticize–people say “Science shows… blah blah” when science doesn’t show that; it is their own metaphysical story they read from the data. Also “Scientific” is used synonymously with “rational” (not using faith), so that people can call metaphysical stories/myths (of ultimate purpose and absolute morality) “scientifically-supported” “reality”, which they believe because A) traditional uses of “faith”/“religion” place their focus on things that can’t be observed–deemed “real” regardless of culture and B) science only focuses on things that are.
Basically… the “secular” trend towards values is against (and was intended to be the solution to) the social/collective basing one’s actions according to a moral code “given” by a supernatural being (because these derive from texts written in ancient closed societies/cultures that don’t apply to a multicultural community–there can’t be any social stability/sense of security if people are operating according to radically different value systems).
So, at its base is first an assumption of what is “bad”–treating an unseen (and unfalsifiable) non physical concept as “real”, and operating (in a multicultural society) according to that, as well as the ignorance responsible to do so while thinking anyone who disagrees with them is wrong.
So then their “good” is “rationality”, but as an absolute this only has meaning by it not being the irrationality of focusing on a not physical reality. So “good” is knowing about phenomenon.
The “purpose” of life, many of them then assume, is simply physical existence itself (because that is the good, the NOT imaginary/fantasy/not “real”), so a lot of them live by the value of vague concepts like “natural”, or that whatever makes one live longest, or have sex or be “alpha”.
The problem is their insisting that anything in the physical world, and scientific facts about it, proves a purpose to any of it, and demonstrates what is right and was is wrong. The “not physical/imaginary” being they fail to take into account is their own interpretation and conceptualization of things.
James could have made a point on how people often misuse the word “science”, and end up making the same errors of certainty science is used to prevent, but instead he made the same mistake of using it without a clear, coherent definition. Merely deeming “science” as irrational because a couple people used the word (improperly) that way.