What is science to you?

[belligerent drunk]

I started a thread some time ago titled "what is philosophy to you?" to get an idea of what philosophy means to this forum's posters. Now I would like to do the same for science. The reason being that I see a lot of misconceptions about what science and the scientific method stand for, and it was brought to my attention lately when I re-watched the whole X-Files, wherein sadly science was misrepresented in a complete role-reversal. What I mean by that is science's role in the series is something concrete in the way that it has "truths" which nature seemingly has to abide by. In reality, it is science which has to abide by nature's laws, nature doesn't give a fuck what we think about it.

So my questions to the audience are:

-what purpose does science have in your world view?
-how does scientific knowledge affect your spiritual or philosophical beliefs? If it does, then how do you deal with situations where scientific evidence contradicts your beliefs? (assuming it happens)
-do you think the world would be better off without science? Why?

Those are a few of the key points I'm curious about, but feel free to talk about any aspects you consider important.

 

[treezy z]

Science is all right, it is one of the devil's favorite tricks though. A lot of people get led astray by ideas like the big bang which are nothing but theories implanted in the scientist's mind by satan.

 

[swilow]

Nice topic, Satan aside.

I think people sometimes think of science as an ideology, when its really a method. In its purest form, without bias or predjudice, it has a high potential for providing us with objective physical facts. It has the potential to do something that really no other method of discovery does, and that is cut through the opinions and likes/dislikes of humans and give us something we can say is objectively true. What we do with that knowledge has nothing to do with the scientific method.

-how does scientific knowledge affect your spiritual or philosophical beliefs? If it does, then how do you deal with situations where scientific evidence contradicts your beliefs? (assuming it happens)

Its changed my beliefs. More accurately, its removed some things I thought I believed in, and its codified other things that I was only distantly aware of. I had a tentative belief in some kind of autonomous divinity at the end and beginning of time constructing a holographic universe for me to moonwalk through, a deity I could even pray to for help, that was concerned for human affairs and had the capacity, and will, to intervene. I really hoped for some kind of divine power to help me, and I asked it and got the same answer everyone who has ever prayed has gotten, resounding, echoing, all consuming silence. Human history is littered with people who desperately needed help, were even promised it, and than died in sufferring. The only tool we've discovered that has truly uplifted a majority of people has been science.

Science should help us mature as a species and become aware that we are not even a side-note in the universe and that there is nothing out there that cares about us and can intervene for us; you only need to look at history to see this is so. The universe has not been constructed for us; we have somehow managed to become part of a self-sustaining chain of existence that is tremendously complex and utterly impersonal. There is no way that I can now bend the evidence all around me to imagine the role of an intent creator-god who is on my side. With this swept aside, doesn't our place in reality seem even more unusual, more bizarre, less probable? More magical? For me, it does.

Thank god for science! :D

-do you think the world would be better off without science? Why?

No, I don't think so. No matter what philosophy humans use, it will always end up corrupted and biased; it is the nature our ancestors evolved over hundreds of millions of years, to pervert and exploit new ideas to obtain resources. It is true that the abundance of technology in society has caused tremendous environmental harm, but look at the almost global suffering of, say, 300 years ago. Science is a tool which might destroy us; but it is also the only tool we have which might save us- which is the same as saying that the truth will save us. If I look at how the daily lives of humans has improved, rapidly, over the last century or so, in a manner that religion has promised but never delivered, and I think we have an interesting idea of what science has the capacity to do. If we want an inhabitable world, we've really only one method through which to achieve it and its the same method that lead us here. And this cannot be taken as a criticism of science, because the method itself is valueless.

The way science is spoken of sometimes makes it seem like a religion or philosophy. Its really not either. Its a tool, a method, a way of finding things out. Religion, as a method for improving lives and diminishing suffering has lead to the void that science has filled.

I don't revere science in any sense. I just think its more useful than any other tool we've discovered so far. It could be the last tool we need. It still has nothing to say about human nature and how to avoid corrupting truth, but truth is truth and cannot be corrupted. Its humans that are corrupt.

 

[Cosmic Trigger]

Science to me is just another thing for man to corrupt and use towards evil ends.

 

[Foreigner]

tl;dr version: science is cool, it's people that are the problem. Everyone should live together in harmony and learn from one another's differences as much as possible, kumbaya, etc etc...

Long version:

Observation and reproducible experiment on the natural, physical, material world primarily through deductive reasoning.

I differ from swilow in that it seems to me that science is ultimately another branch of philosophy. There is such a thing as objective observation, perhaps, but not objective reporting. Every observer is their own unique filter of reality based on their own independent arising, life experiences, personal biases, etc. There is also something to be said for that which is observed being changed by the observer. It's rarely possible to separate ideology from methods as far as humans are concerned. Science and the school of rationality got us out of the dark ages and the iron grip of religious institutions, but its primacy in the modern period have made it so every-day that people take for granted its origins in the schools of "natural philosophy". This occurs to such a degree that people have come to view it as completely objective, rather than another epistemological assertion about reality. For this reason science is never "pure method". Every word that comes out of a scientist's mouth is an assessment of reality, whether we agree with it or not, whether it makes sense or not, whether we deem it objective or not. This would be apparent to westerners if they knew the history of science. The western schools of science and philosophy have a penchant for disregarding everything that came before. Thus there is not much talk anymore of Paracelsus or Hippocrates, except as references to obsolete superstitions. When the current model comes face to face with its own obsolescence, it will face the same attitude all over again.

Science is useful because it grants us a method of categorizing and structuring the material world for our betterment. I am grateful for the advancements that science has afforded us and am curious to see where future discoveries will lead humanity. At the same time it bugs me when these advancements are touted as evidence of a "best systems" approach than anything that came before. It no doubt grants a high level of expertise at an utmost material reductionist level that no other system (to my knowledge) can really compete with in that sphere. But I fear scientism is becoming a monoculture type entity that wishes to supplant all other "invalid" systems which do not categorize reality in the way it does, and this can be problematic for the ethnosphere human knowledge and wisdom if we are not careful. There is a great deal of subversive discussion worldwide about how western science comes part and parcel with colonialism because of its similar culture of correctness and self-declared objectivity. It has a "civilizing" influence. My travels, psychedelic use, and forays into various philosophical, spiritual and religious systems have all informed me that consciousness is so complex that no one system can really explain what we are looking at, and so any threat to human perceptual diversity is something I take rather personally.

We see this all the time when personal experiences and anecdotes are dismissed as being "not real" because science has not done an experiment on that aspect of reality yet. If we are not careful to separate methods from ideology then we could stamp out aspects of the human ethnosphere that may prove vital to other kinds of survival down the road. We should also be careful to not judge experiences over which science currently has no say one way or another. If we're talking just methods and not ideology, then science should be opinion neutral toward things that it has not yet examined, or does not currently have the capability to. There should be acknowledged limits rather than assertions that science is a fountain of endless answers. Again... ideology vs. methods.

Where spiritual systems attempt to move from abstract to material, science in my view is moving from material to abstract over time. The two will eventually meet and we will finally have a holistic view of reality in the western school of thinking. For this reason, I have never viewed scientific methods as being contradictory to my spiritual beliefs. They are usually complimentary. I view science as taking its rightful place among the huge human bodies of knowledge. It is individuals, not the scientific method, who oppose other ways of thinking. I've had so many "aha!" moments because of science and it is a source of endless fascination. I'm trained in the scientific method due to being involved in medicine, and I also have a rich spiritual life. Like any collection of epistemologies they work well in tandem if there is a will to integrate them. When I was a kid I viewed science as hard-fast and it was my time in Asia that changed that, because Asian cultures are relatively continuous and don't dispose of the old, they just integrate the new into the old. Thus there are people practicing Traditional Chinese Medicine using modern technology combined with classical medical texts from 2000 years ago. It was studying non-biomedical forms of medicine that opened my mind to the awareness that the universe is multifaceted in of itself, made more complex by the nature of any given observer. It's also apparent that there isn't just one kind of science either! We should weigh all kinds of sciences and philosophies in proportion rather than assume one is the most correct.

An analogy would be the Amazon rainforest. It's being cut down bit by bit in order for monocultured farmland to take its place. We don't even know exactly what we're destroying because the Amazon is so diverse, so mysterious, and so full of secrets. I look at human philosophy the same way. If the goal of science is to better understand the universe and reality, then it shouldn't have a beef with other systems trying to do so, or vice versa!

 

[Foreigner]

That was a hella long post, sorry if I was a bit bombarding there. My midnight postings are a mouthful sometimes heh

 

[Kittycat5]

Well the Hippocratic oath tells us to not administer poisons and Paracelsus says only the dose makes the poison, Foreigner. This dilemma is good enough for me to throw out most of modern medical science (or maybe my job just bores me).

Seriously, science is the best way we have yet to come up with to quench our thirst of curiousity. Thats why I hold it in higher regard than any form of spiritualism.

 

[swilow]

I liked your post foreigner and responded in lengthy fashion too.

I differ from swilow in that it seems to me that science is ultimately another branch of philosophy.

Science differs from philosophy because it only makes assertions and calls a thing 'true' that has been experimentally tested. Philosophy seems more related to proposition and assesment, but skips the part about experimental validation. I have read it described (and I am paraphrasing) that philosophy is 'like the opening and closing arguments of a court case, science is the opening argument, the evidence and then the closing argument'. I hope that this doesn't seem that I am bashing philosophy because I'm absolutely not and value it deeply and anyone who has read a post of mine would maybe agree. Philosophy helps us to examine the things that science cannot, such as emotions and consciousness and spiritual drive- I think everyone is something of a philosopher and I really enjoy trying to elicit deep statements from people you may not think of as thinking that way.

There are shared attributes but I science is concerned primarily with testing hypotheses in a physical sense. Enacting an idea and testing it under the constraints of reality. Hence me saying that its a method, not an ideology. I do see what you are saying, and I would chime in by saying that science can only confirm one particular type of knowledge, that of physical reality.

Science is useful because it grants us a method of categorizing and structuring the material world for our betterment. I am grateful for the advancements that science has afforded us and am curious to see where future discoveries will lead humanity. At the same time it bugs me when these advancements are touted as evidence of a "best systems" approach than anything that came before. It no doubt grants a high level of expertise at an utmost material reductionist level that no other system (to my knowledge) can really compete with in that sphere. But I fear scientism is becoming a monoculture type entity that wishes to supplant all other "invalid" systems which do not categorize reality in the way it does, and this can be problematic for the ethnosphere human knowledge and wisdom if we are not careful. There is a great deal of subversive discussion worldwide about how western science comes part and parcel with colonialism because of its similar culture of correctness and self-declared objectivity. It has a "civilizing" influence. My travels, psychedelic use, and forays into various philosophical, spiritual and religious systems have all informed me that consciousness is so complex that no one system can really explain what we are looking at, and so any threat to human perceptual diversity is something I take rather personally.

Good statements foreigner. And you've lead me to some thoughts I hadn't had before, which is nice, such as the reference to colonialism and the connection between correctness with the certainty that scientific thinking can lead you to imagine you have. A fixation on the scientific method does not invalidate ideas and questions that have not been tested or cannot be tested. And these things still exist regardless of whether science can validate them or not. There is something disturbing about the passionate materialism we see these days and I feel like humans are slipping further and further from some kind of ideal environment and 'perfect' cultural state that we have evolved to exist in. I don't know about you, but I find our plastic world fucking alienating and most of the time I want no part of it. There is something deep in us that needs satisfaction and it doesn't seem we can draw that exclusively from our environment.

But, again, we aren't really talking about the scientific method, but moreso the human culture that utilises it. You are totally correct in saying that it is unlikely for pure objectivity to exist, but there are ways to try and build that in to science, such as double-blind experiments, the fact a scientific conclusion must be reproducible, etc. Perhaps that is why we rely on mathematics to model things, because the idea of numbers are basically objective and the same for all. Using numbers to answer questions might reduce bias; its then up to asking unbiased questions to get some truth about somethings. Like our existence in this massive star-filled void and all that...

One thing that we should avoid is having exagerrated expectations. It does something of an injustice to science, and a huge one to ourselves, to think science will solve all our problems. It won't change our nature, that is up to us to develop reason and a sense of wonder and peace. It can make the physical parts of our lives easier, and perhaps then we can really nurture our mental and spiritual life. But, for whatever reason, so many people seem unhappy and isolated these days; the comfort and ease we have (some of us) inherited seems to have come at the cost of something else. Science has helped to remove some of our innate superstition and given us a degree of certainty and our lives are longer and easier in a material sense than ever before, but we are probably more emotionally lost than ever. Then again, there seem to be millions who love this sort of empty world we're building.

 

[belligerent drunk]

Thanks swilow and Foreigner for very detailed posts, I appreciate the viewpoints. I'll try to write a response soon, but I need some time to organize my thoughts a little.

 

[tantric]

this is an important bit for me, epistemology

scientific truth, in current age, is store in peer-reviewed journal articles, from journals like Nature and Science. in the world of professional science, if you want to prove a fact, that's how its done.

this is an important issue, but largely unknown. this is the canon of scientific facts. and most of it is copyrighted and not available to the public.

consider this debate on reddit:

for five years, i took 75mg of dxm every morning. it fixed me, with the neat side effect making me highly refractory to addiction. as in, i was once a hard core iv opiate addict, but with this, i could take pain medicine as direct, not binge, etc.

Im glad that helped you but I just want you to know that DXM will create problems with cognitive functioning and increase your chances of Dementia since it is antichlorogenic so I have done dxm 2 or 3 times the last time way too much Im glad that im never going to touch it again I just dont think its worth the risk benadryl poses the same risk btw if you are taking that. I just cant seem to think DXM will help you I think its best avoided.

if you want to disagree, show your references...

Dextromethorphan as a potential rapid-acting antidepressant

Abstract: Dextromethorphan shares pharmacological properties in common with antidepressants and, in particular, ketamine, a drug with demonstrated rapid-acting antidepressant activity. Pharmacodynamic similarities include actions on NMDA, μ opiate, sigma-1, calcium channel, serotonin transporter, and muscarinic sites. Additional unique properties potentially contributory to an antidepressant effect include actions at ß, alpha-2, and serotonin1b/d receptors. It is therefore, hypothesized that dextromethorphan may have antidepressant efficacy in bipolar, unipolar, major depression, psychotic, and treatment-resistant depressive disorders, and may display rapid-onset of antidepressant response. An antidepressant response may be associated with a positive family history of alcoholism, prediction of ketamine response, increased AMPA–to–NMDA receptor activity ratio, antidepressant properties in animal models of depression, reward system activation, enhanced erythrocyte magnesium concentration, and correlation with frontal μ receptor binding potential. Clinical trials of dextromethorphan in depressive disorders, especially treatment-resistant depression, now seem warranted.

An extension of hypotheses regarding rapid-acting, treatment-refractory, and conventional antidepressant activity of dextromethorphan and dextrorphan

Abstract: It was previously hypothesized that dextromethorphan (DM) and dextrorphan (DX) may possess antidepressant properties, including rapid and conventional onsets of action and utility in treatment-refractory depression, based on pharmacodynamic similarities to ketamine. These similarities included sigma-1 (σ1) agonist and NMDA antagonist properties, calcium channel blockade, muscarinic binding, serotonin transporter (5HTT) inhibition, and μ receptor potentiation. Here, six specific hypotheses are developed in light of additional mechanisms and evidence. Comparable potencies to ketamine for DM and DX are detailed for σ1 (DX > DM > ketamine), NMDA PCP site (DX > ketamine > DM), and muscarinic (DX > ketamine >>>> DM) receptors, 5HTT (DM > DX ≫ ketamine), and NMDA antagonist potentiation of μ receptor stimulation (DM > ketamine). Rapid acting antidepressant properties of DM include NMDA high-affinity site, NMDR-2A, and functional NMDR-2B receptor antagonism, σ1 stimulation, putative mTOR activation (by σ1 stimulation, μ potentiation, and 5HTT inhibition), putative AMPA receptor trafficking (by mTOR activation, PCP antagonism, σ1 stimulation, μ potentiation, and 5HTT inhibition), and dendritogenesis, spinogenesis, synaptogenesis, and neuronal survival by NMDA antagonism and σ1 and mTOR signaling. Those for dextrorphan include NMDA high-affinity site and NMDR-2A antagonism, σ1 stimulation, putative mTOR activation (by σ1 stimulation and ß adrenoreceptor stimulation), putative AMPA receptor trafficking (by mTOR activation, PCP antagonism, σ1 stimulation, ß stimulation, and μ antagonism), and dendritogenesis, spinogenesis, synaptogenesis, and neuronal survival by NMDA antagonism and σ1 and mTOR signaling. Conventional antidepressant properties for dextromethorphan and dextrorphan include 5HTT and norepinephrine transporter inhibition, σ1 stimulation, NMDA and PCP antagonism, and possible serotonin 5HT1b/d receptor stimulation. Additional properties for dextromethorphan include possible presynaptic α2 adrenoreceptor antagonism or postsynaptic α2 stimulation and, for dextrorphan, ß stimulation and possible muscarinic and μ antagonism. Treatment-refractory depression properties include increased serotonin and norepinephrine availability, PCP, NMDR-2B, presynaptic alpha-2 antagonism, and the multiplicity of other antidepressant receptor mechanisms. Suggestions for clinical trials are provided for oral high-dose dextromethorphan and Nuedexta (dextromethorphan combined with quinidine to block metabolism to dextrorphan, thereby increasing dextromethorphan plasma concentrations). Suggestions include exclusionary criteria, oral dosing, observation periods, dose–response approaches, and safety and tolerability are considered. Although oral dextromethorphan may be somewhat more likely to show efficacy through complementary antidepressant mechanisms of dextrorphan, a clinical trial will be more logistically complex than one of Nuedexta due to high doses and plasma level variability. Clinical trials may increase our therapeutic armamentarium and our pharmacological understanding of treatment-refractory depression and antidepressant onset of action.

Super interesting stuff about the antidepressant effects. Thanks for the abstracts.
We really don't know a ton about what causes Olney's lesions. It does seem to have something to do with NMDA antagonism, but the evidence I've seen on dextromethorphan specifically is not terribly conclusive. Probably it takes high doses (like, dissociating doses) to cause them if at all. But it is worth keeping an eye on your risks.

 

[cyberius]

-what purpose does science have in your world view?

It has no purpose. Science is merely a means to reach the end, and intellectual stimulation.

-how does scientific knowledge affect your spiritual or philosophical beliefs? If it does, then how do you deal with situations where scientific evidence contradicts your beliefs? (assuming it happens)

Science only supports my spiritual/philosophical beliefs. I believe all knowledge falls on the same hierarchy and at higher abstractions we're all trying to explain the same exact things in different ways.

-do you think the world would be better off without science? Why?

Science is a way of attaching meaning to things that truly have no meaning. It's merely a distraction until we die, and a way to justify and intellectualize the suffering you experience. I feel like we would be better off without science.

 

[sigmond]

what purpose does science have in your world view?

to propose the best explanations humans can devise

 

[Cosmic Trigger]

Science is a way of attaching meaning to things that truly have no meaning. It's merely a distraction until we die, and a way to justify and intellectualize the suffering you experience. I feel like we would be better off without science.

I have actually come to almost the same conclusion. Science and everything else. It's not that things have no meaning because how could I know that? I think it is a distraction and gives us the illusion that we know something certain about our existence. That illusory certainty relieves the fear of the unknown and the idea that we are mortal without our consent. We really have no freedom or choice about being here or whether we die or not. That's pretty scary. Science gives us some feelings of control and the belief that one day we'll figure out everything.

 

[belligerent drunk]

No, I don't think so. No matter what philosophy humans use, it will always end up corrupted and biased; it is the nature our ancestors evolved over hundreds of millions of years, to pervert and exploit new ideas to obtain resources. It is true that the abundance of technology in society has caused tremendous environmental harm, but look at the almost global suffering of, say, 300 years ago. Science is a tool which might destroy us; but it is also the only tool we have which might save us- which is the same as saying that the truth will save us. If I look at how the daily lives of humans has improved, rapidly, over the last century or so, in a manner that religion has promised but never delivered, and I think we have an interesting idea of what science has the capacity to do. If we want an inhabitable world, we've really only one method through which to achieve it and its the same method that lead us here. And this cannot be taken as a criticism of science, because the method itself is valueless.

This is a very good point. A simple analogy is our ability to perform nuclear reactions. We can either use that ability to effectively turn mass into electrical energy (which is a very green approach), or we can use it to blow up cities and destroy nations. We know how to do both, and it's up to humans to decide which one they want (figuratively speaking of course).

I differ from swilow in that it seems to me that science is ultimately another branch of philosophy. There is such a thing as objective observation, perhaps, but not objective reporting. Every observer is their own unique filter of reality based on their own independent arising, life experiences, personal biases, etc.

Ideally, this should not be true. Science is a methodology used to describe the laws of nature - the way nature behaves. Now, you can use that knowledge to do philosophy, which is what I try to do, but in that case it's just philosophy based on scientific knowledge.

But I fear scientism is becoming a monoculture type entity that wishes to supplant all other "invalid" systems which do not categorize reality in the way it does, and this can be problematic for the ethnosphere human knowledge and wisdom if we are not careful. There is a great deal of subversive discussion worldwide about how western science comes part and parcel with colonialism because of its similar culture of correctness and self-declared objectivity. It has a "civilizing" influence.

I see a similar, albeit somewhat different problem with the way science is understood by the layman (and sadly, even some scientists). People picture it as something rigid, concrete, infallible, and very narrow(!). A lot of people for some reason think that because science hasn't shown something to be true or exist, then that means that said thing isn't true or doesn't exist; and conversely, there is the notion that if some group of scientists has shown X to be Y, then that is inherently true. The latter mostly happens when the person wants X to be Y, so they justify their belief by using "science". Ideally, this should be OK, but in reality, original results or claims are often wrong due to human error or hidden factors (which is why peer-review is important).

Another problem with the way people view science is, they think it's very narrow and limited to the already existing knowledge or methods. As if reality has many aspects, and science only tries to explain one. What science can probe is subject to discussion (philosophy of science), but in short my opinion is that science can try to explain everything that can be tested experimentally, and even go farther as to use existing knowledge to make reasonable predictions about things that are out of reach from empirical proof - if a theoretical framework that is based on experiment makes a hundred predictions, but only 95 of them can be verified, and when verified turn out to be true, then it is quite likely that following the same framework, the remaining 5 untestable predictions are also true; although it depends on how optimistic one is as there is no logical reason to surely trust it.

What I'm trying to get at is the belief that things like spirituality can't be probed by science, and so every person's subjective opinion on the matter is what has to be trusted instead. Personal beliefs I have nothing against, but some people go as far as to suggest that if you're trying to base your spiritual beliefs on scientific knowledge, then you're doing it wrong. What most don't realize is that if something can't be verified and isn't based on existing knowledge, then it's just conjecture/pure speculation. All the biases humans are prone to when it comes to subjective opinions or observations aside, this kind of freedom to suggest anything is counterproductive in my opinion, and results in an exercise in futility as far as discussion of such topics goes if the deciding factor is "I believe so".

Science is a way of attaching meaning to things that truly have no meaning.

No, science answers the "how?" question not the "why?" question. It's a method used to describe how things interact with each other, not why they do it that way. It attaches no meaning to anything. On the contrary, it is religion/spiritualism that tries to attach meaning to phenomena etc. Science has no say on what the meaning of life is or why we're here (although it can explain how we got here). It's a slight, but very important difference to understand.

 

[cyberius]

I have actually come to almost the same conclusion. Science and everything else. It's not that things have no meaning because how could I know that? I think it is a distraction and gives us the illusion that we know something certain about our existence. That illusory certainty relieves the fear of the unknown and the idea that we are mortal without our consent. We really have no freedom or choice about being here or whether we die or not. That's pretty scary. Science gives us some feelings of control and the belief that one day we'll figure out everything.

Losing control is scary. I definitely agree with that, humans place lots of value control on and perceived certainty and when both those things break down we begin to have existential anxiety and lose our humanity.

 

[Cosmic Trigger]

That's exactly right. It sounds like you've read Ernest Becker or checked out Terror Management Theory.

 

[cyberius]

That's exactly right. It sounds like you've read Ernest Becker or checked out Terror Management Theory.

Those sound interesting and I'm about to check them out, but a lot of this is just from intuition and heavy psychedelic use %)

(I can fluently talk out my ass)

 

[Cosmic Trigger]

Psychedelics can both save and condemn at different places in time and knowledge. If you don't see what I'm saying maybe down the line you will.

 

[JessFR]

I started a thread some time ago titled "what is philosophy to you?" to get an idea of what philosophy means to this forum's posters. Now I would like to do the same for science. The reason being that I see a lot of misconceptions about what science and the scientific method stand for, and it was brought to my attention lately when I re-watched the whole X-Files, wherein sadly science was misrepresented in a complete role-reversal. What I mean by that is science's role in the series is something concrete in the way that it has "truths" which nature seemingly has to abide by. In reality, it is science which has to abide by nature's laws, nature doesn't give a fuck what we think about it.

So my questions to the audience are:

-what purpose does science have in your world view?
-how does scientific knowledge affect your spiritual or philosophical beliefs? If it does, then how do you deal with situations where scientific evidence contradicts your beliefs? (assuming it happens)
-do you think the world would be better off without science? Why?

Those are a few of the key points I'm curious about, but feel free to talk about any aspects you consider important.

What purpose? To learn, to understand. Science is a method which we have developed to provide our subjective perceptions information that is as close to objective as we have yet been able to attain. And through that learn more about how the universe, reality itself, works. And to have a standard which has stood the test of time and proven itself to be highly accurate, with which we can determine what is the current most likely answer to any question which has the potential to have an objective answer waiting to be found. Obviously it can't provide probable answers on questions where objective answers don't or can't exist.

I have spiritual beliefs, I believe in something akin to a soul for example. But if the science starts to strongly indicate something that for whatever reason is the case and in contradiction to my beliefs, then my beliefs were wrong, I need to reevaluate my beliefs. My spirituality is an extension of my knowledge of science into areas science can't or doesn't have answers. Taking the science and making a scientifically inspired but ultimately unfounded spiritual belief system that 'may' be true, or may not be. But ultimately my spiritual beliefs are something I modify to be consistent with the science. If the science indicates a belief I had was wrong, then I need to come up with new beliefs based on the new information.

The world would be faaar far worse off without science. Science is a truly inspired method with which to take information and sort out what is very likely from what is very unlikely. And it has proven itself to work in this regard by virtue of all we have tangibly accomplished.using science. The internet, vaccines, semiconducting microchips, MRI scanners, and countless more wonders, science is the method with which we learned what we needed to know to accomplish these feats. And countless lives have been saved or improved because of it. It speaks for itself.

I think learning science as a concept should be a mandatory part of public education for everyone. Taught young and retaught as our children grow into adults. Everyone should know what science is. As one of the most important things everyone should learn, with learning to read being one of the few other things as important.

 

[swilow]

Losing control is scary. I definitely agree with that, humans place lots of value control on and perceived certainty and when both those things break down we begin to have existential anxiety and lose our humanity.

I would say that existential anxiety is part of our humanity. You don't see many non-humans contemplating their navels like we do.

There is very little certainty in our reality.