'Science' is Not Really Science; science doesn't exist

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Let me first of all say that I am not a Christian, nor do I have any sort of religion, so don’t dismiss my argument as “means to an end” before you finish reading it.

Science is not truly science, as it fails to meet its own criteria that is has established for itself.

The first statement to be made in the argument uprooting science is “Science can not exist, because nothing can be known for certain”

This is then countered by scientists with “Science does not claim to know anything for certain, it only sets theories and hypotheses which can be re-adjusted later if evidence shows they are incorrect”

Then, the rarely proposed second statement (one which people have rarely ever closely examined) is “Everyone has their own theories and hypotheses which they make themselves to answer their own questions, but that doesn’t make them true.”

Then this is countered by scientists with “Scientific theories have evidence to support them”

Then, the final statement can be made that “People’s own individual theories and hypotheses have evidence in their mind supporting them as well, evidence gained through experience”.

With this, the only counter arguments that can be made pertain to what constitutes “valid evidence” – all of which is ultimately subjective, and has no objective foundation.

Ultimately, someone down the line has to decide what evidence is worthy as “valid evidence” to be accepted by the scientific community.

In reality, no amount of evidence can ever rule out all variables explaining the result of an experiment – in order for us to assume evidence as “valid”, we must first assume the existence of other “truths”.

Therefore, there is no objective foundation to science in general.

‘Science’ is nothing more than a Strategy in Communication that presents a barrier keeping out corruption and human error; by demanding evidence for every claim made, individuals can work together towards greater aims that otherwise would have been unreachable (technological advancement).

Science is an invented concept that does not exist outside of the human mind – this is not to say there is no “objective truth” underlying the mechanics of how existence works; I am simply suggesting that if there is such an objective truth, there is no way of knowing it for certain.

Scientists are merely members of a Guild; the principles which scientists follow are no different than those that a guild might follow.

The unspoken rule of science is to assume that there is a common ground where everyone can eventually agree upon something as “true” even if all possible variables have not yet been explored.

With this in mind, “Scientific Laws” can not possibly be declared “Laws” or “Absolutely True” – at most, science can introduce ideas that members of the guild have agreed upon as accurate, and the adjective “scientific” indicates nothing besides the aesthetic style of wording in which something is presented.

2

Hmm…

Maybe it would be good to see that Science is merely a method for determining, through observation, what wasn’t true. It cannot actually determine what IS true. Thus perhaps “Science” (“knowing”) isn’t the best label. But a method for verification of a hypothesis (the “Scientific Method”) is certainly something worth holding onto.

To say that it doesn’t exist isn’t exactly right, although I get your point. Lately it really has become a self-protecting religion (a social Ego).

Metaphysics is of course, the answer to the problem, although until now very poorly maintained.

3

I agree, but is the scientific method really anything more than strict set of guidelines to make sure proponents of a theory aren’t using the theory as a means to an end?

I feel like I have ripped open a perpetuating wound, the same wound that might have been responsible for making Nietzsche insane

Science needs a new definition, one that is objective. Not only must the language used for the definition be objective, but the definition must be wholly objective in spirit, such that subjective interpretation can not be exploited.

Is such a definition - rather, a foundation - even possible?

4

Although we don’t have true truth, we have the best truths currently possible given our existence.

5

I think I agree with this for the most part,
but this may have only come with an increase in human population and communication abilities: i.e., the human species was, in the past, incapable of achieving such technological progress due to the fact that groups of people simply weren’t large enough.

The invention of “science” as an ideal allowed us to temporarily dismiss longstanding tradition, laws, and taboos, so that we could progress beyond their limitations – but this was only possible after enough progression had taken place on its own.

What allowed this progression? Was it the size of the population? Or perhaps the knowledge we accumulated and built off of over generations? Or was it because, genetically, we have been evolving into superior thinkers?
Perhaps it is all of those, I’d like to hear some other theories or even guesses regarding that.

Anyways, we can do better now, we need to create truer truths, or else we won’t be able to move on; everything will be so open to interpretation that people will simply live in their own realities, progress will stop - and as soon as the generation who had created this progress dies off, we will be flying blind as soon as the innovations they gave us break down and are in need of repairs

6

Science is little more than a set of conventions defining the requirements of “evidence”. If you (or any scientists) believed otherwise, there’s a large body of scientific and philosophical work to get through.

You’ve already conceded that scientists don’t claim to know anything for certain.

Unless you’re using aesthetic in a radically new way, this doesn’t follow at all. It’s procedural.

7

You might do well to define your “We” in that assertion.

8

Science cannot exist because nothing can be known for certain? My refutation is that x=x therefore science exists. Or maybe, your argument can’t be certain, so science may exist, and therefore your statement is meaningless. I dunno dude. I dunno.

9

You seem to be treating science as a body of work in your argument when in fact it is a methodology.

All those people with all those ideas and all that evidence that you point do as a refutation of science- they may well be DOING science (poorly, or with inadequate resources).

Whether or not anything is true (and if we can know it) has nothing to do with whether or not science exists. The way you describe science as a strategy and an invention of the mind is very close to true, and…pretty much non-controversial as far as I know. Honestly, I don’t think I’ve heard anybody define science all that differently from how you ultimately do.

Maybe it would help if you said more about the precise definition/view of science that you’re arguing against.

10

I don’t have a problem with the scientific method per say, although it’s imperfect, I think it’s probably better than reading tea leaves, or palms, or pig entrails.

The philosophical method is pretty good too, for philosophers, the emphasis is on systematic, rational (avoiding internal (thought/language contradicting itself) and external (thought/language contradicting the world) contradictions) and rigorous thinking, debating and discussing, the deemphasis is on observation and experiementation… science is just the reverse. Good philosophers draw from their observations and experimentations, however typically they don’t observe and experiment specifically for the purpose of obtaining knowledge, nor do they systematically and rigorously record their observations and experimentations the way scientists typically do, rather good philosophers draw from life experiences or from some of the findings of scientists, where as bad philosophers draw from absolutely nothing, or primarily from their intuition, or from what makes them feel good (a species of religious thinking).

I mean, reason alone can only tell you so much or rather so little, reason alone can’t tell you there’s 8 planets in our solar system, or perhaps it (more/less) can tell you how planets ought to be defined, give you a relatively consistent definition of what a planet is, but it can’t tell you how many planets there are in our solar system, for this we are relient upon science, with their sophisticated tools and technology for observing, experiementing and recording data.

However, concerning people, places and things we regularly encounter in everyday living, philosophy can tell us a great deal about these things, it can tell us about politics, economics, psychology, sociology, morals, values, epistemology and metaphysics (being in itself as opposed to beings, or more especially exoctic beings (distant worlds, micro/macro worlds), because these aren’t things we need sophisticated equipment to comment on, in fact, I think if you require sophisticated equipment to comment on human psychology, I would say you’re borderline retarded, or a fucking coward who can’t think for himself or herself.

It also can tell us little or nothing about what might be in the amazon rain forest, although one doesn’t require sophisticated equipment to investigate things there, one does need to actually make an effort to go there, or otherwise one is relient on what scientists have to say about it, which wouldn’t be philosophy in and of itself, where as I can comment about dogs and cats, because I’ve had them before, and I’ve talked to people who’ve had them, so I don’t need a scientist to tell me about their behavior.

The problem with science is this - it may be able to tells us more about the universe, however their information is less reliable then philosophers. Since philosophy (systematic, rational and rigorous analysis, debating/discussing) is backed by common experiences, there’s less chance philosophers are lying to us, as all their claims can be disproven by an intelligent mind, where as if a scientist tell us the universe is a trillion lightyears in length, we have no way of independently verifying this, the only thing we can do is check to make sure their work is internally consistent, and externally consistent with what we already know about the universe, based on our own personal experiences and interpretations, and our collective or common sensical experience and interpretations, and/or we can check with other scientists to see if there is a consensus among them, but then again, there was a consensus among the Clergy in Rome about so many things, and they were supposedly proven wrong, so how do we know scientists are consistently applying the scientific method, what if there’s a scientific conspiracy or conspiracies, to make us see the world in a certain way, like man made global warming theory for example, or 5 billion year old earth theory, or the 15 billion year old universe theory, or the big bang theory, perhaps even heliocentrism, so much of our information from science may be construed, exaggerated or downright fabricated, for personal, political or economic gain. I mean who are these ‘people’ out there, who wish to be our eyes and ears, supposedly solving the mysteries of the universe… have you ever met one? I haven’t. What if there’s a hidden agenda, a secret brotherhood controlling some or most of these scientists, and tells them which findings to publish and which findings not to publish?

And thus, in light of all this, I don’t put a great deal of stock in what scientists have to say. If a scientist tells me the big bang occurred, and he supposedly has seen for himself the ‘incontrovertible’ evidence supporting the big bang theory, I’ll think to myself, maybe he’s right, maybe he’s wrong, I refuse to give him or anyone I don’t know personally the benefit of the doubt, or I’ll give him an ever so slight probability of being right, especially if thousands of other scientists are behind him, and amateur scientists (ones incapable of being fully initiated in their cult, if they have a cult) and recent newcomers could easily disprove the theory wrong, but the more advanced the equipment needed to study something, and the fewer scientists who have seen the evidence supporting the claim, and if they’re tied in with government or corporations or secret societies, then I will remain absolutely skeptical of what they have to say, I will not follow them like some sort of religion.

One more thing, I think Zeteticism is better than science in many ways.

11

One of the problems I have with threads such as this is the very broad definition assumed for the word ‘science’–when there are so many different sciences. Every different science has its sets of criteria used to ‘prove’ or disprove its theory–some ‘proofs’ rely on statistics, some on experimentation–which leads to empirical evidence,–some on ‘pure’ mathematics, and so on. Some are a combination of two or more sets. So don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

The scientific method is the best method we have (that we can understand–because it involves the logic of mathematics) to ‘prove’ the validity of a theory. Can we show ‘truth’ in science using the scientific method? So far, depending on the science, the best we seem to be able to do is show the most highly probable results of the models of various theories; theories that cannot, or haven’t yet, be[en] disproven.

And please separate science from technology. They’re two different ‘things.’ :wink:

12

‘Science’, that relies purely on mathematical proofs, isn’t science at all, it’s applied mathematics. ‘Science’, that relies purely on logical proofs, isn’t science at all, it’s philosophy. Science always begins with especially 1st hand observation and experimentation (the sensual), and to a lesser extent 2nd hand observation and experimentation, and ends with logic and/or mathematics (the rational). Finally you publish your findings in a scientific peer review journal (the social), where other scientists make up their own minds, concerning the validity of your claims and proofs. There has to be something unifying all sciences, otherwise there’s no point in referring to astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology and physics as science, they may as well go by different names, if they’re employing vastly different methods. The further you dv8 from what I just outlined, the further you dv8 from what science is.

13

As for your comment about technology, I’m not saying science = technology, or that scientists always use sophisticated technical equipment to aid them in observing and experimenting, rather, I’m saying these days they often do, and that’s a problem, because the general public, amateur scientists and scientists working in other fields, will have trouble verifying their claims 1st hand. Git it?

14

Hence, Science is just a strategy in communication by the Scientific Community, and not really anything beyond that. Am I right?

I agree; and it especially doesn’t help that most colleges these days are nothing more than money-grabbing diploma mills that don’t really teach anybody anything other than cookbook recipes – they don’t teach anybody how something works, they just teach people how to use it purposefully: so as soon as it breaks down or becomes outdated (which doesn’t take a very long time especially in the times we live in), the education one received becomes worthless and useless.

15

You haven’t presented any argument: you’ve just made a series of assertions. Hope that clears things up a bit.

16

Anyone who studies any science in school at any level, from BS to PhD, is obsolete before her/his course work is completed. The degree in nothing more than an introduction into a field of study. So I agree, to a certain extent, that ‘science’ isn’t really Science. I agree–science is methodology.

I also think, however, that scientific methodology in the various scientific fields has led to ‘discoveries’ that wouldn’t have been possible without the methodology.

If there’s any sort of ‘problem,’ it seems to me, it’s because so many people rely on science to solve subjective ‘problems.’ That’s an impossibility.

17

It also defines the scientific community, so maybe you should take a step back and evaluate what made you say “scientific community” because it might lead you to new ideas about science.

18

I still don’t think any of my points have been disproven anywhere in this thread - I haven’t been satisfied with any answer yet (but I’m still hoping someone might expand upon an original answer to refute me to my own satisfaction). To me, there is still no objective truth; no objective foundation, which science innately relies upon in order for science to exist as something more than the traditional esotericism (religious superstition, for example) that science claims to be superior to.

If anything, “Science” just marks a new period in the collective human consciousness in which our predictions are more in-tune with the invisible objective “laws” that nature has set forth to govern the physics around us.

19

Peachy are you familiar with Thomas Kuhn? You know the objectivity in science is in the structure of the method. Whether a complex or simple definition of it. Kuhn gives a really good account of what proper science should be in a book called, “the structure of scientific revolutions”. It’s authoritative and all that shit.

20

It did nothing of the kind. You’re the one imposing criteria. Science doesn’t even have intentions.

Next question please.