Is Science a value system?

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by Magical Realist, Jan 15, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    It isn't a stretch at all. Perhaps you did delivery work so long ago that GPS wasn't used, but it is used today by the vast majority of delivery services. And it isn't just a matter of "relying", it is also for monitoring employees and monitoring the vehicles (scheduling maintenance, for example).
    Actually, yeah -- you need to learn history better. Starting to learn astronomy is part of what enabled farming thousands of years ago.

    In any case though, your basic point about the science of astronomy itself not providing much value for daily life is basically correct. And particularly with research in it today -- there are few if any applications for the knowledge gained. So what?
    You don't have to learn science for science to benefit from it. Your posting on this forum, using a computer and the internet, is proof of that.
    Not blashpemous, just stupid. If you weren't going to be a geologist, why did you go to college and take geology? Waste of time/money. I went to college to learn mechanical engineering so I could become a mechanical engineer. I use the science I learned in college every day.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2015
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,684
    So you're saying the value of mechanical science was entirely relative to your use of it towards succeeding in a career in mechanical engineering. Just as the value of geology was entirely relative to my decision to go into a career that never used that scientific knowledge. Good..so you agree that science does NOT have value in itself, but only relative to the personal goals we have.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Huh? Sure, MR -- science does not have value except for the value it has.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,684
    No..except for the value individuals place on it. We can use science as a tool, or as a weapon. Its value depends on how we use that information for our own personal ends.
     
  8. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    The value of anything is the value individuals place on it. So...yes.
    Correct! I know it was accidental, but I'm still so very proud of you.
     
  9. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,684
    It might shed light on some of these posts to include here a description of what scientism is as opposed to science:

    "Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.[1] It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society."[2] The term scientism frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism[3][4] and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,[5]philosophers of science such as Karl Popper,[6] and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam[7] and Tzvetan Todorov[8] to describe the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable.[9] "Scientism" has also been taken over as a name for the view that science is the only reliable source of knowledge by philosophers such as Alexander Rosenberg.[10]

    Scientism may refer to science applied "in excess". The term scientism can apply in either of two senses:

    1. To indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims.[11] This usage applies equally in contexts where science might not apply,[12] such as when the topic is perceived to be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and in contexts where there is insufficient empirical evidence to justify a scientific conclusion. It includes an excessive deference to claims made by scientists or an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as scientific. In this case, the term is a counterargument to appeals to scientific authority.
    2. To refer to "the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry,"[13] or that "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective"[7] with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience."[14][15]
    The term is also used by historians, philosophers, and cultural critics to highlight the possible dangers of lapses towards excessive reductionism in all fields of human knowledge.

    For social theorists in the tradition of Max Weber, such as J├╝rgen Habermas and Max Horkheimer, the concept of scientism relates significantly to the philosophy of positivism, but also to the cultural rationalization of the modern West.[9][21] British writer and feminist thinker Sara Maitland has called scientism a "myth as pernicious as any sort of fundamentalism."===http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
     
  10. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,871
    Why didn't you start this thread complaining about scientism instead of science?

    I suspect you see scientism in situations where most of the rest of us see science. If not, then we all agree with you.
     
    Russ_Watters likes this.
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Best Practical on the job knowledge, is most certainly scientifically based.
    You really need to get over this philosophical claptrap you are infesting your thread with.



    Your whole thread insults the discipline of science, with no substantial evidence at all.
    Just the philosophical claptrap I mentioned.

    And from a philosopher himself, supporting that claim I just made.....

    Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you don't know.
    Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) English philosopher, mathematician.
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    No, as I said, Science is knowledge, pure and simple.
    Science is the systematic classification of experience.
    In essence, science is a perpetual search for an intelligent and integrated comprehension of the world we live in.
    Cornelius Bernardus Van Neil (1897- ) U. S. microbiologist.

    Science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary.
    Albert Einstein (1879-1955)


     
  13. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,684
    Uh..no it isn't. The fact that there are numerous forms of non-scientific knowledge like history, art, language, literature, philosophy, politics, culture, music, mathematics, logic, etc is sufficient to debunk such an absurdly fallacious claim.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2015
  14. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,684
    Why are you whining about my thread now ? If you wish to discuss another topic, start your own thread.
     
  15. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,871
    I've been a part of this thread the entire time and what other topic are you referring to. I'm referring to this topic.
     
  16. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,684
    You're complaining that I didn't mention scientism in my thread title. So what? I mentioned that people using science for value enforcement is scientism in my second post. So why are you whining about that? Unless you're just trolling, in which case you can be ignored.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2015
  17. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Apparently, you wish to discuss another topic!
    And yet you titled the thread "Is science a value system?" and posted the thread in a science forum, not a scientism forum. It seems you are flip-flopping about the topic. Probably because you have a grudge against science and think all scientists are scientismists.

    I agree with Seattle: If your only point was that scientism is bad, everyone would agree with you and there would be nothing to discuss. So can we agree on that and end the thread, or is there something else you started this thread to discuss?

    For the record: I know a lot of scientists, but I've never met or even heard of any scientismists. I suspect they are like the Yeti, Loch Ness Monster, ghosts, and flying saucers: a figment of your imagination.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2015
  18. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,684
    Which topic is that?
     
  19. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,684
    Yes..the thread is making a distinction between science and scientism. That was the point of the question and the following posts. If you wanna bitch about it, report me and see what happens. If otoh you have nothing more to contribute, then move on. I'm not going to tolerate your usual trolling today.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2015
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Thanks for those revelations. In regards to this particular philosophical dreamer, I was mostly ignorant as to his past antics, as I have never participated in threads in regards to the fairy tale scenarios you mentioned and presumably he has pushed in the past.

    Oh for Christ sake, arrogance to burn also!
    MR, While you flounder in your self indulgent philosophical claptrap as portrayed by your posts, maybe you should consider what I asked you earlier......
    To question science 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.
     
  21. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,684
    LOL! You're overexciting yourself scienceboy, frothing and jumping about like your sacred gospel of science were under threat of collapsing. You're a class A example of the effect scientism has on people, who use science as if it were a program for achieving some personal utopian dream. It isn't. It's just information about the world. Information that can either be used or abused depending on the person, corporation, or government accessing it. Remember that quote from Einstein you posted? "Science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary."
    Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2015
  22. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,871
    Science is only a tool. It can never match the glory of his word. He who gave his only son to forgive us of our sins. True knowledge only comes from him, he who is the father, son, and the holy ghost.

    Science gives us math, but he who is all gives us the butterfly. Give praise to him who gave us this butterfly. He who forgave this butterfly of his sins and so transformed him from a lowly caterpillar to the beautiful butterfly.

    I've seen the light and no longer need to seek knowledge for I have all knowledge when I give myself to him. Praise the lard.
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Well since you are the one that started this thread with your nonsensical philosophical take on science, knowing it would draw the wrath of those that do realise that the reason we as a race are where we are today, is because of science of all disciplines, is highly hypocritical.
    But from what I hear, that appears to be a quality often attributed to yourself.

    Frothing, and jumping?, Na, I'm just revealing the bullshit that is obvious from your opening post.
    You should also realise, if it wasn't for science and the countless benefits, you might not even be here with us, sad as that may sound.
    Also still no comment on my scenario for you to take up?

    The sad part about your attitude, is that science will continue on regardless, and you will be there in all your glory, grabbing what you can, that comes from the inevitable advances of science.

    One thing most reasonable thinking people will know without me telling them, the sciences of astronomy/cosmology will continue on being a forerunner and one of the top instigators in acquiring all the benefits that are still possible for humanity to obtain.
    One can then be thankful somewhat, that opinions like yours, are in the minority.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page