Hacker News Reader

> namely, casting doubt on the veracity of scientific beliefs by painting them in the guise of religion.

You think he is commenting on the scientific method but he is really commenting on human nature.

People really are treating Science as a kind of religion.

Understanding this motivation is important because it shows the precarious position we are in - any event which causes a loss of faith in “Science” the religion could quickly turn our culture away from its relatively pro-science culture.

I agree that, subjectively, it seems like the popular discourse surrounding the nature of science is not exactly philosophically rigorous. And I agree that some people seem to hold quasi-religious views of science.

Maybe I totally misunderstood OP, but it seemed like they were conflating the state of popular discourse with the state of academic philosophy.

As an aside, I don’t think that people are likely to stop trusting in science or the scientific community because of the state of discourse surrounding science. I think that people are much likely to distrust science simply because they don’t like certain findings or it’s not politically aligned with them, imho. At least in America.

I initially wanted to downvote GP, for the reasons you cite and more, but it sparked such an interesting (if predictably heated) debate that I kind of like it.

Thank you for holding back.

> You employ a rhetorical move that some theists have used in the past -- namely, casting doubt on the veracity of scientific beliefs by painting them in the guise of religion.

Are you not doing the same thing back to him ?

If you disagree, then please tell me the definition of science.

"Science" is just a collection of tools and processes.

"Scientisits" use those processes to attempt to arrive at true conclusions. This can be very difficult.

Over time, "science" (the nebulous institution) can build up enough accrued "truths" that it can make interesting conclusions with a decent degree of confidence. (Note: scientific studies that are reported by clickbait headlines are not what I'm talking about.)

The point is, that you can personally go learn how it all works, follow the studies, and attempt to replicate them, even, to arrive at the same conclusions. Or, if you find issues along the way, you can point them out and contribute to the corpus of "scientific knowledge" by removing an invalid "truth".

That's not the definition. There are many tools and processes that do not constitute science.

If you want to define science as that which uncovers truth, then, for that to be true, you must be able to define truth without resorting to tautology (that is, there must be a way to verify 'truth').

Excluding a subset of what's false doesn't necessarily lead you to discovering or being able to accept (integrate) the truth.

Red is a colour, but not all colours are red.

That doesn't mean that red isn't a colour because there are colours that are not red.

Truth is what lets you predict the future state of the world. The better the predictions, the closer you are to "the truth". Physicists are very careful to understand the uncertainties in what they know and only say its "true" and publish the results when those uncertainties 5 or 6 or 7 sigma. Their predictions work almost always but are limited to a very small slice of reality. Other sciences move farther from this ideal and are less likely to be stating "the truth".

Science is the belief that the laws of nature are consistent, and therefore repeatable and testable.

From there the practice of science is repeating and testing claims about nature, and communicating these tests through various social processes such as peer reviewed journals or running through the streets naked shouting "Eureka!"

> Science is the belief that the laws of nature are consistent, and therefore repeatable and testable.

No, science is the practice of using the assumption of consistent laws of nature to build predictive models. In a way, it is more an elaborate extended test of the utility of the assumption than a belief in it (though obviously belief may support the practice and observed utility of the resulting models may create or reinforce belief.) But belief in the assumption is neither necessary to nor sufficient for science.

> That's not the definition. There are many tools and processes that do not constitute science.

They didn't say that. They said science was a collection of tools and processes. Obviously tools and processes exist that aren't a part of that collection.

1) It’s hard to say “no” to this because it’s not clear what you mean. Do you mean to say that I’m painting religion in the guise of religion?

2) here are several definitions: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

1. Him means the person you're replying to. Your argument is clearly to paint him in a religious light. You need something more substantial than "other theists say similar things". You need concrete proof to draw a conclusion.

2. The question is whether you can show that what the person you're replying to is arguing in favor of is not science. Pasting some definitions proves neither that you understand them nor that they apply.

>You need concrete proof to draw a conclusion

I think we found a point we can agree upon!

The person salmonfamine was replying to already painted himself (or herself) in a religious light. I see no justification for characterizing salmonfamine's argument as "to paint him in a religious light" -- and since salmonfamine explicitly said "I am not an atheist or an agnostic", it seems you're arguing that one religious person is trying to stigmatize another by labelling them as religious. Not very likely.

Science is a methodology for defining how the universe operates. It’s sole assumption is the univers has some form of order, and holds zero other beliefs.

Seriously, people question if time exists or how many dimensions their are. Consensus is what allows medicine to operate and people to build computers etc, but it’s not accepted Truth.

That's not the definition. What is the methodology ?

It’s a recursive definition. Methodology that works is science, that which fails is not. Things like peer review are accepted practice, but practice changes over time based on research.

People simplify things like to use hypothesis > experiment loop as Science. But, in practice simple observation is often used for things like Botany.

Ex: Philosophy is not science becase it does not work. You can’t argue from first principles and end up with a modern CPU.

> Philosophy is not science becase it does not work.

I'm slightly amused by this statement, as modern science is descended directly from philosophy. Indeed without philosophy, I could easily argue there is no science as we know it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy

Language changes over time, you can’t use an outdated 18th century term to refer to the modern linguistic meaning of a term.

Now days we call the useless bits philosophy, 200 years ago back when people took Phrenology as a real thing that was not true.

> Language changes over time, you can’t use an outdated 18th century term to refer to the modern linguistic meaning of a term.

Thats just it though, science is natural philosophy. Doesn't get changed by modern terminology at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

Your personal definition of science and philosophy don't override the overall usage of the terms. Feel free to encourage their use, but know those definitions aren't the overall accepted definitions in use.

First the term Natural Philosophy is uses to separate it into it's on thing rather than just calling it Philosophy. The Greeks had a very different idea for what we translate as Philosophy than we do. Algebra is Math, but Math is not just Algebra. Further, the term Natural Philosophy had a different scope than Science much closer to what we would call "natural science" than how it's used in modern context. So while closely related calling Natural Philosophy Science is no more accurate than calling Chemistry Mathematics they simply refer to different things.

Anyway, it's really not my definition for Science, if you want to quote wikipedia: "Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge")[1] is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[2][a]" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science) Notice the last of specific implementation details, that's what I am referring to.

"The earliest roots of science can be traced to Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia in around 3500 to 3000 BCE" well before natural philosophy. The Greeks are given a lot of credit, but they the ideas are much older than them.

Science is the practice of developing theories that best explain and are most able to predict natural phenomena given the evidence available. It is dissimilar to religion as at no point does it claim certainty, and new evidence can overturn any theory.