Is Science a value system?

[Seattle]

Wow..that's quite a stretch from astronomy to GPS to shipping deliveries. I used to deliver packages for a living and not once did I rely on a GPS. And knowing the sun is a really ancient star helps crops to grow and cattle to breed? I coulda sworn we've been doing that as a species for thousands of years prior. Sorry, you still offer no evidence that astronomy benefits us at all. And no, precious little I've learned from science ever enters into my daily life. I took two years of geology in college and ended up joining the military. How did that information impact my life? It didn't. No more than knowing how cells divide, or how matter is formed, or how gravity works, is ever useful to me. Sorry if you consider that blasphemous.

Why did you bother to go to college if you aren't interested in an education?

You do agree that someone had to have an education to design the truck that you delivered packages from. I agree that there isn't much education that is "required" to deliver packages.

 

[Magical Realist]

You are presenting only a small part of a longer work. Sagan does not seem to merely be relying on scientific results to draw his conclusion.

What in this thread is an example of scientism and how?

I quoted what was posted in this thread as an example of science leading to value judgments. That's what you requested and I provided it.

 

[Magical Realist]

Why did you bother to go to college if you aren't interested in an education?

You do agree that someone had to have an education to design the truck that you delivered packages from. I agree that there isn't much education that is "required" to deliver packages.

Moving the goalposts from scientific knowledge to education? I never equated the two. You did. Many, if not most, people acquire educations that have nothing to do with science. I guess those would be invalid educations in your little world.

You do agree that someone had to have an education to design the truck that you delivered packages from.

Henry Ford actually had precious little formal education. He worked mainly as an apprentice. What a failure he was eh?

 

[paddoboy]

Sorry, you still offer no evidence that astronomy benefits us at all. And no, precious little I've learned from science ever enters into my daily life. I took two years of geology in college and ended up joining the military. How did that information impact my life? It didn't. No more than knowing how cells divide, or how matter is formed, or how gravity works, is ever useful to me. Sorry if you consider that blasphemous.

I see it as a more stupid conclusion to arrive at rather then blasphemous.

 

[Seattle]

Moving the goalposts from scientific knowledge to education? I never equated the two. You did. Many, if not most, people acquire educations that have nothing to do with science. I guess those would be invalid educations in your little world.



Henry Ford actually had precious little formal education. He worked mainly as an apprentice. What a failure he was eh?

I don't have any (formal) scientific education (beyond the basics). I'm equating knowledge to education.

You don't care about scientific knowledge so why care about any knowledge. History doesn't make your life better nor does any other education that you don't use if that's the way you want to look at it.

That's not (obviously) how I look at it. I'm also quite sure that my world is bigger than yours

 

[Jason.Marshall]

Yes! Well put! That's all I'm saying. Science prides itself in putting emotion and value aside in its acquisition of information and formulation of theories. Yet for some it has become an exceedingly emotional and value-filled experience, representing a vision of the human race conquering ignorance and solving problems towards achieving some utopian dream. I don't fault people for using science in this personal way. I myself find myself doing it too. But to be strictly scientific, this use of science IS scientism, and cannot be justified in scientific terms. We simply cannot logically derive moral conclusions based on mere information. If science is the salvation of mankind, it is only because we elevate it to be such.



I agree. It's surely never a given what works "best" in a society. Science demonstrates many examples of this. We split the atom. A better society or a worse society? We invent pesticides. A better society or a worse society? Computers? Half of us are now obese, at risk for things like diabetes and heart disease. So it's always a matter of selective preference and personal values when it comes to HOW science is bettering society. The vision of science as a panacea for all problems seems laden with subjective moral assumptions and personal goals that are not found in science itself.



I feel like this sort of devaluation of scientific data comes from having a world view in conflict with the one many base on science. Religion, as well as a sort anti-establishment mindset, where science is equated to a totalitarian rule of a "new world order", illustrated in novels such as 1984, Brave New World, Gattacca, and The Giver. Many people fear the authoritarian use that is made of science, using its data to achieve personal political and social agendas.

Awe...this can be compared to the difference of thinking in a checkers mentally versus a chess mentally the former will not know when its time to change gears and push the turbo button...lol. After all "Logic is triumphant over all" and God has made it so, he is neither science or religion but has inspired the creation of both.

 

[Magical Realist]

I don't have a scientific education (beyond the basics). I'm equating knowledge to education.

You don't care about scientific knowledge so why care about any knowledge. History doesn't make your life better nor does any other education that you don't use if that's the way you want to look at it.

Probably most the knowledge we gain about the world and which we use in our daily lives is learned apart from any education. Education is book learning. Knowledge otoh is much broader and includes practical "how to" things that we learn by doing and practice. Book learning can be useful. It can also be irrelevant. As in the case of much of science.

 

[paddoboy]

Ignoring the idiocy that is evident in some posts, I have posted many benefits of Astronomy/cosmology that are unchallenged in that regards.
Let's look at Meteorology and Agriculture and the advantage Satellites have given us in both these disciplines. The improved forecasting, the mapping of lands and information gained in when, where and what crops to plant has in reality reduced the incidence of hunger and poverty somewhat, and will continue to improve in that regards, perhaps even eliminating it.

That's just a tiny example of how science has unquestionably helped human kind.

To question that fact, with such negativity and personal unsupported opinions, makes one wonder why our friend Magical Realist, does not go find an Island somewhere, off the beaten track, away from all civilisation, without all mod cons, including cooking utensils etc and put his unsupported hypothesis to work.
Science/knowledge [under many names] has been benefiting mankind since we climbed down out of the trees.

 

[paddoboy]

Book learning can be useful. It can also be irrelevant. As in the case of much of science.

And as is also the case with day dreaming and silly personal philosophies.

 

[paddoboy]

Probably most the knowledge we gain about the world and which we use in our daily lives is learned apart from any education

SCIENCE IS KNOWLEDGE

 

[Magical Realist]

Ignoring the idiocy that is evident in some posts, I have posted many benefits of Astronomy/cosmology that are unchallenged in that regards.
Let's look at Meteorology and Agriculture and the advantage Satellites have given us in both these disciplines. The improved forecasting, the mapping of lands and information gained in when, where and what crops to plant has in reality reduced the incidence of hunger and poverty somewhat, and will continue to improve in that regards, perhaps even eliminating it.

That's just a tiny example of how science has unquestionably helped human kind.

To question that fact, with such negativity and personal unsupported opinions, makes one wonder why our friend Magical Realist, does not go find an Island somewhere, off the beaten track, away from all civilisation, without all mod cons, including cooking utensils etc and put his unsupported hypothesis to work.
Science/knowledge [under many names] has been benefiting mankind since we climbed down out of the trees.

LOL! I'd put far more trust in what an uneducated farmer tells me about growing crops than in what some scientist says about it.

 

[Jason.Marshall]

"since we climbed down out of the trees.[/QUOTE]"

The tree of knowledge of good and evil...lol? Then you shall surely die...for mankind has descended into the lower realms of duality and now remain in sin. They have fallen from grace lost their wings and now a slave to gravity for the apple shall hit them on the tops of their heads...These are metaphors meditate on them intensely.

 

[Seattle]

LOL! I'd but far more trust in what an uneducated farmer tells me about growing crops than in what some scientist says about it.

LOL! I'd but far more trust in what an uneducated farmer tells me about growing crops than in what some scientist says about it.

Many farmers in the U.S. are educated and went to college. I'm guessing you didn't do well in school. Otherwise, why the disdain for education?

 

[Magical Realist]

Many farmers in the U.S. are educated and went to college.

Irrelevant. I'd still put more trust in practical on the job knowledge than on scientific theories and
facts.

I'm guessing you didn't do well in school. Otherwise, why the disdain for education?

I'm guessing you have a need to insult me because you have no replies to my points..

 

[Seattle]

I'm guessing you have a need to insult me because you have no replies to my points..

I've posted many times in this thread to which you have had no response. Go back and read the thread.

You seem to have no point beyond some Luddite position that education is bad.

 

[Magical Realist]

SCIENCE IS KNOWLEDGE

Science is a subcategory of knowledge. But there are many other forms of knowledge. Knowing how to drive a car or use language isn't science for example.

 

[Magical Realist]

I've posted many times in this thread to which you have had no response.

I don't respond to trolling or attempts to derail the thread into irrelevant ad homs about how I am.

 

[Seattle]

Science is a subcategory of knowledge. But there are many other forms of knowledge. Knowing how to drive a car or use language isn't science for example.

I don't think anyone has argued that science was all knowledge nor has anyone argued that knowing how to drive a car wasn't knowledge or was science.

Astrophysics (for example) has resulted in the material benefits that others have already pointed out but it's also important for many of the same reasons that discovery has always been important to man.

It also answers many of the questions that some turn to religion for. Where did we come from, how do things work, answering some of the bigger questions and in the case of science not answering ones for which there is no answer yet.

 

[Magical Realist]

I don't think anyone has argued that science was all knowledge nor has anyone argued that knowing how to drive a car wasn't knowledge or was science.

It depends on how one interprets the statement "Science is Knowledge". Does that mean science is an INSTANCE of knowledge, or does it mean all knowledge is science. If it was meant in the former way, then I'm mistaken. Yes, science is definitely an instance of knowledge.

Astrophysics (for example) has resulted in the material benefits that others have already pointed out but it's also important for many of the same reasons that discovery has always been important to man.

The problem goes back to my OP...how does value get assigned to mere factual or theoretical information? Technology is perhaps the main way we make scientific knowledge valuable to us. Much as a tree is given value by a man with an ax who needs to build a home. What I'm saying is that this value is not inherent to the knowledge, any more than a tree has inherent value just because it can be used for its wood to build a house. WE give science value in the way we use the information. Information which in itself could be used for good or for evil depending on the person. A serial killer for example may use science to achieve his own horrendous ends. Does that mean science is therefore inherently bad or evil? No..and so it must follow that just because we turn scientific knowledge into things that benefit our society doesn't mean that knowledge is inherently good or morally virtuous. The information is value neutral UNTIL we use it to achieve some desired end or goal. See what I'm saying?

It also answers many of the questions that some turn to religion for. Where did we come from, how do things work, answering some of the bigger questions and in the case of science not answering ones for which there is no answer yet.

Knowledge of where we came from is essentially value neutral. It doesn't avail us either way to know or not to know that we evolved from lesser organisms. Likewise knowing how things work doesn't have value in itself either. It may satisfy our curiosity. But it really has no purpose to us unless we can apply that knowledge to our own ends. Only then do the facts assume an importance to us they didn't have before. An importance entirely relative to how well we can apply those facts towards achieving what we value. And even THEN that purpose we make of the facts may be helpful to others, or just to ourselves, or even harmful to others.

 

[Russ_Watters]

I know this is late, but it seems like the first few posts went off in the wrong direction, so:

Is science a value system?

No. Science is a method for investigating the natural world. But it does utilize certain values in the method. Logic instead of emotion, honesty, openness, open mindedness, etc.

Are certain values advanced by science over others?

Kind of. Because science helps identify how reality works, it can provide answers that certain value systems would otherwise seek through thought alone. So it can prove the conclusions of certain value systems objectively. Ultimately, values are a matter of pure opinion, but when value systems try to explain reality, then science can step in and be the judge. For example:
1. Inequality is unfair. Value. Completely opinion-based.
2. Inequality is unfair because it causes poverty. Conclusion about how the world works. Can be tested scientifically.

Whether it should or not, typically it often seems too. The way people use science as a banner for some agenda such as atheism, skepticism, positivism, and environmentalism...

You are misreading the situation. Because science is a method, it can be used as a tool. But that doesn't mean science itself endorses anything. It's a bit like saying that Ford advocates plumbing because plumbers use Ford cargo vans. The reality is that Ford doesn't care if their cargo vans are used by plumbers or delivery-men, as long as people are buying them.

....you'd think being scientific equated to being somehow more noble and stoic than the normal human being.

Well...maybe. Science has an extremely good track record for accuracy, so as a result it can be said to work very well for certain things. For example, it has done a lot better than the Catholic Church in explaining the motion of the planets. Is that a value? No, it's just a factual reality. Is it a result of the values that fit with the scientific process? Yes.

A certain elevation of science as the hard-earned suffered-for cause of truth. But why should that be so? Is science REALLY the sole means of discerning truth in our experience?

Science is far and a way the most successful way of investigating how the natural world works.

And how does one determine the validity of these values presupposed by scientific progress? Certainly not scientifically...

Values are opinion-based, so opinions on that will vary.

That science used as a value system is no longer science. It may be an ideology, or a belief system, or a metaphysical position, or a political cause. But it isn't science.

That's an obvious tautology and therefore meaningless/pointless. A newspaper recycled into a notepad isn't a newspaper anymore. So what?

I simply propose that they acknowledge that there are no values in facts or knowledge per se. The value is placed on it by ourselves, and those values are what we each, in our own lives, were raised to believe in and espouse in our own lives. Is that really so hard to admit? That science expresses a devotion to ideals and aspirations that you have for yourself in your personal life. That you USE science as others would a life philosophy or a religion?

You are seeing something that isn't there. The problem you describe would be a problem if it existed -- and any scientists would agree -- but it doesn't exist in any significant volume.