Separation of Science and State

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

I think the comparison doesn't work because it is of two different domains. Also, using falsifiability as a demarcation principle between science and non-science doesn't seem to work at all, not in the least because scientific theories can be said to be not falsifiable unless you stretch falsifiability so far in which case pseudoscience like creationism and astrology can be said to be falsifiable.

---

I never really understood that as a criteria either. But it is easy to just say "must be falsifiable" I guess.

Quote:

---

Appeal to (certain religious) authority is a much sounder epistemic basis for knowledge than philosophical argument. Not even close. Good thing 'philosophy' isn't too much at a disadvantage seeing as there have been philosophical schools since the beginning which can be nicely characterized as appealing to authority.

---

I don't understand what you mean. Using, say, moral intuitions as the foundation for a system of ethics and then arguing from there philosophically compared to saying that the people who did the same thing in ancient times got it right?

Quote:

---

There are an infinite (potentially infinite) number of postulates that can fit the available evidence. What percentage true range did you have in mind for 'often'?

---

We were talking about actual postulates, i.e. things that have been postulated (he said something like, "science is never right, it just postulates..." and the point is it has been right about a great many things).

Quote:

---

However, going beyond that, I'd add these major differences between the two. Religion really has to have ritual tied to it. I think ritual is a necessary condition, otherwise I would say something was 'philosophy' (for lack of a better term). And I really don't think something like research programs could be counted as ritual.

Furthermore, religion and science are even more distinguished today due to the secularization of science. Lindberg, Grant, and Hannam in their histories of science do an excellent job of showing how premodern science was very closely tied with religion and ideas of the supernatural. However, methodological naturalism now is the de facto methodology and actual metaphysical naturalism is assumed quite often. This to the extent that you will have people nowadays argue that science as we know it did not exist until 400-500 years ago, or even later than that (and if you accept their definition of science, they have a point).

Also, the domains of science and religion are different. I definitely don't agree with people who say they do not intersect as there is some overlap, but despite that, science (nowadays) is almost wholly exoteric in focus. Religion is both exoteric and esoteric, and the latter plays a big part in its identification.

---

Can you tell me something? I'm under the impression that it used to be a debate between "faith and reason", did this morph at some point into "science vs religion"? Why?

Or maybe it was "reason vs revelation".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I never really understood that as a criteria either. But it is easy to just say "must be falsifiable" I guess.

---

It's the purported demarcation principle (along with the related testability) which many scientists and lovers of science, and a few philosophers of science uphold. I never liked it but it seems to persuade judges for now. :shrug:

Quote:

---

I don't understand what you mean. Using, say, moral intuitions as the foundation for a system of ethics and then arguing from there philosophically compared to saying that the people who did the same thing in ancient times got it right?

---

Right, the latter (in specific cases) is a lot better than the former.

Quote:

---

We were talking about actual postulates, i.e. things that have been postulated (he said something like, "science is never right, it just postulates..." and the point is it has been right about a great many things).

---

Well, there have been a ton of 'postulates' in that case, though not a potential infinite. Also, science is probably not right in most (all?) of its postulates. For example, Geocentrism is probably wrong, so is heliocentrism. GR is probably wrong as well.

All of them are good (in the sense that they fit the evidence or rather the evidence fits them) models though, though you might favor one or another for whatever reason.

Quote:

---

Can you tell me something? I'm under the impression that it used to be a debate between "faith and reason", did this morph at some point into "science vs religion"? Why?

Or maybe it was "reason vs revelation".

---

Science and religion seem to be synonyms for or at least very closely tied to reason and faith for a lot of people. :juggle2: Science (and reason) have had some good PR of late I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

@Viking: are you seriously suggesting that ethnicity and political ideas are similar in some way....?

---

What gives you that idea? The characterisation of entire groups is a method of induction. You see some traits that you do not like in some individuals belonging to a particular group, and conclude that these traits belongs to all members of the group - because it is convenient. Also known as bigotry.

Some forms of bigotry are less taboo than others, however. Therein lies the difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Well, it's impossible to know everything about a group of people.

---

Yes...? It is. The fact that they seemingly share some traits doesn't change anything. :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

In its most literal sense, I'd agree with this statement, but I know what you're trying to get at, and I have to respectfully disagree here. :bow: Science shouldn't be characterized as a religion. First of all, I feel it is a great insult to religion to do something like that.

I know what the point you're trying to make here is something like: 'science and religion both rest essentially on metaphysical axioms which can't be distinguished from each other' and I agree to a point (though I do think we can distinguish, just perhaps not rationally or in a value neutral way).

However, going beyond that, I'd add these major differences between the two. Religion really has to have ritual tied to it. I think ritual is a necessary condition, otherwise I would say something was 'philosophy' (for lack of a better term). And I really don't think something like research programs could be counted as ritual.

Furthermore, religion and science are even more distinguished today due to the secularization of science. Lindberg, Grant, and Hannam in their histories of science do an excellent job of showing how premodern science was very closely tied with religion and ideas of the supernatural. However, methodological naturalism now is the de facto methodology and actual metaphysical naturalism is assumed quite often. This to the extent that you will have people nowadays argue that science as we know it did not exist until 400-500 years ago, or even later than that (and if you accept their definition of science, they have a point).

Also, the domains of science and religion are different. I definitely don't agree with people who say they do not intersect as there is some overlap, but despite that, science (nowadays) is almost wholly exoteric in focus. Religion is both exoteric and esoteric, and the latter plays a big part in its identification.

---

i actually meant it in literal sense. imo science isnt a religion, not even in the sense that i described it. practical science never will be such a religion because practical science is supposed to have neutral or no values. theoretical science does have the potential when what viking has said will happen.

as for your further points i think there should be a difference between the theoretical parts of both on which the practical parts actually rests but in day to day business does not really rely on (more so in the case of deities than in the case of science). practical science and practical religion (for the lack of a better word, deitism) are nothing alike indeed. and i would never compare them. but for the theoretical part only the first argument is needed, the one which you agree too. and perhaps the last argument would fit in there as well, im not yet sure about it, it is difficult. i share that intuition of domains, but i doubt you can maintain that position under philosophical scrutiny.

the debate reason vs faith is a tricky one anyway. where is to find the balance? no one would like a world of one absent the other, even it was possible. in a fully rational world that has been technologically developed as far as ours, the human species would die out rather quick. i guess in a world full of only faith, the same would happen. though i havent given that much thought.

not everything is and should be reasonable, i doubt that everything can be reasonable. the same goes for faith. i guess the seperation that is most popular now is a good one. in the public domain we would want reason to flourish and have the upperhand. but in day to day life what most people do is believe in a good outcome and make that step forward. because had you been fully rational you would end up afraid to step out of your door because you cannot know what is out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

What gives you that idea? The characterisation of entire groups is a method of induction. You see some traits that you do not like in some individuals belonging to a particular group, and conclude that these traits belongs to all members of the group - because it is convenient. Also known as bigotry.

Some forms of bigotry are less taboo than others, however. Therein lies the difference.

---

No.

I am not refering to the persons themselves, I am referring to the prominent ideas that makes up anarcho-capitalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

No.

I am not refering to the persons themselves, I am referring to the prominent ideas that makes up anarcho-capitalism.

---

This is what you said (bold face added by me): "Also, anarcho-capitalists are tards and conspiracy nuts.". You labeled the persons, not the ideas. That requires the assumption that if someone follows a stupid idea; or more precisely: a set of stupid ideas; then the persons themselves must be stupid; which does not automatically follow (as a matter of fact, there are...quite a few different ways to arrive at the same conclusion).

Furthermore, you have concluded that the ideas that make up the ideology are "stupid"; as you write above, which I for some funny reason suspect that you haven't spent time to "prove" logically, provided that such things are of such a nature that they can be "proven". After all, if you mean that a state - or rather the lack of it - should appear in a particular fashion only because the principles appeal to you; then what can be proven? What can be said to be "retarded"?

Anyway, regardless of what I write above, it is sort of an unnecessary statement to put forward - it is not going to help rational debate. :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

I think the comparison doesn't work because it is of two different domains. Also, using falsifiability as a demarcation principle between science and non-science doesn't seem to work at all, not in the least because scientific theories can be said to be not falsifiable unless you stretch falsifiability so far in which case pseudoscience like creationism and astrology can be said to be falsifiable.

---

That was actually my point. It's ridiculous to say that because religion is separated from the state, science should be, too. They're completely different beasts, and the OP was trying to fit them into the same box.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

not everything is and should be reasonable, i doubt that everything can be reasonable. the same goes for faith. i guess the seperation that is most popular now is a good one. in the public domain we would want reason to flourish and have the upperhand. but in day to day life what most people do is believe in a good outcome and make that step forward. because had you been fully rational you would end up afraid to step out of your door because you cannot know what is out there.

---

Should only reason hold sway in the public sphere though? What about Human Rights, which were founded on the theistic principle that all man (later extended to women) are created equally? In a non-theistic and purely rational world Human Rights would never have emerged, so it seems reasonable to allow room for faith and belief in public life, religious or otherwise, given that all of us value the results those qualities have brought to public discourse in the past.

Personally, I don't like the seperation between "public" and "private", it implies I can be a good public servant but go home and beat my wife, or ruthlesslessly persecute the poor in government and still read my children a bed time story, asnd those two lives be seperate and non-reflective of each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Should only reason hold sway in the public sphere though? What about Human Rights, which were founded on the theistic principle that all man (later extended to women) are created equally? In a non-theistic and purely rational world Human Rights would never have emerged, so it seems reasonable to allow room for faith and belief in public life, religious or otherwise, given that all of us value the results those qualities have brought to public discourse in the past.

Personally, I don't like the seperation between "public" and "private", it implies I can be a good public servant but go home and beat my wife, or ruthlesslessly persecute the poor in government and still read my children a bed time story, asnd those two lives be seperate and non-reflective of each other.

---

i didnt say that it should be the only thing, i said i think most people would prefer the rational side to dominate in the public sphere, atleast that would be the most rational thing :P i dont believe you can ever fully seperate them and even if we could that it would be a good thing, amongst other reason because what you said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

This is what you said (bold face added by me): "Also, anarcho-capitalists are tards and conspiracy nuts.". You labeled the persons, not the ideas. That requires the assumption that if someone follows a stupid idea; or more precisely: a set of stupid ideas; then the persons themselves must be stupid; which does not automatically follow (as a matter of fact, there are...quite a few different ways to arrive at the same conclusion).

---

Bah. Have fun chipping splinters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

Furthermore, you have concluded that the ideas that make up the ideology are "stupid"; as you write above, which I for some funny reason suspect that you haven't spent time to "prove" logically, provided that such things are of such a nature that they can be "proven". After all, if you mean that a state - or rather the lack of it - should appear in a particular fashion only because the principles appeal to you; then what can be proven? What can be said to be "retarded"?

---

I have concluded that in my opinion, those ideas are X. Are we not allowed to form opinions on political ideas....? Can I not decide that I believe social democracy to be good, and liberal-conservatives(høyre) to be bad? And that anarcho-capitalism is idiotic? If you believe otherwise; fine, go ahead, see what I care. Are people not allowed to say that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a completely and utterly retarded idea....?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

Anyway, regardless of what I write above, it is sort of an unnecessary statement to put forward - it is not going to help rational debate. :inquisitive:

---

Why on earth do you think I wanted to further debate? Heck, why would I even want debate anarcho-capitalism? As I said, the ideas are idiotic, why would I want to argue about stupidity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Bah. Have fun chipping splinters.

---

I am most certain it is not; but in case it is, it's on your invitation (thanks).

Quote:

---

I have concluded that in my opinion, those ideas are X. Are we not allowed to form opinions on political ideas....? Can I not decide that I believe social democracy to be good, and liberal-conservatives(høyre) to be bad? And that anarcho-capitalism is idiotic? If you believe otherwise; fine, go ahead, see what I care. Are people not allowed to say that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a completely and utterly retarded idea....?

---

I am jolly careful with labeling things as "retarded" as it is a very non-descriptive word. If the point of the USSR was to get humanity as close to utopia as possible, then history seems to show that they didn't really know what they were doing.

However; some important distinctions should be made: principle vs. whole. Sometimes principles are put above the whole. For instance when serial killers, serial rapists and "similar" criminals are given prison terms in stead of being executed (considering the cases where they stay in prison for the rest of their lives; the mentally "unstable" ones); even though execution would most probably benefit the rest of the society the most in sum (they could flee and kill/destroy again, they cost money and labour etc). In this case, the principle that the human life is sort of "sacred" is put above the whole, the society. Likewise, leaders of the USSR could say that they follow the right principles and thus have the moral high ground, even if their society wasn't the best to live in in terms of material values.

Yeah, you may have your own political opinions....but when using the word "retarded", then there is really being suggested that we are dealing with flaws of a logical nature; not a matter of taste. In which case you must be able to pull up arguments.

Quote:

---

Why on earth do you think I wanted to further debate? Heck, why would I even want debate anarcho-capitalism? As I said, the ideas are idiotic, why would I want to argue about stupidity?

---

If you want to convince anyone about anything at all, then you will have to put forth arguments supporting your view. Shouting "you suck" is most likely not going to work (would be really nice if it did).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

If you want to convince anyone about anything at all, then you will have to put forth arguments supporting your view. Shouting "you suck" is most likely not going to work (would be really nice if it did).

---

No you don't. Shouting "you suck" doesn't work, but shouting "unamerican", "socialist" or "communist" does.

I say "Define God" and no one replies.

It is because I am right, innit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I say "Define God" and no one replies.

It is because I am right, innit?

---

First Cause.

Happy?

Shouting you suck is a perfectly acceptable answer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

First Cause.

Happy?

---

Nope. Because that isn't 'God' or even exclusive to a creator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Nope. Because that isn't 'God' or even exclusive to a creator.

---

prove the truth of the scientific method.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

prove the truth of the scientific method.

---

Invalid question?

Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world. Which has far more validity than any belief which doesn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Invalid question?

Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world. Which has far more validity than any belief which doesn't.

---

i am not talking about science. which is the practical form founded on the scientific method. Prove the method. It is not an invalid question.

Why does it have more validity? The method decides something is true when it is tested in this and this way and this result comes out. And everything that doesnt follow this method is not truthfull. But if you cant prove the method, your quote becomes dogmatic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Nope. Because that isn't 'God' or even exclusive to a creator.

---

Who says it isn't "God"?

This was my problem with HoreTore's OP, he opened with "X does not exist" without any attempt to define X.

He is ineffable, and defies definition, He says "I am".

Is that more to your liking? I can quote Saint Augustine if you would prefer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Who says it isn't "God"?

---

Hawkings has said so. So has Dawkins. So has many other people.

Even then, "God" (Christian God) is defined as having a conscious, so it isn't a process of nature. So if it was simply one of those fundamental constants which is responsible, or even there not even being a 'first cause', it doesn't make it 'God'.

Also, the Christian God is a personal god with a deep seated interest in humanity, so even then if there was a 'First Cause God', it doesn't even mean it is the Christian God.

nvrmind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

nvrmind.

---

You do learn quickly. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

Why does it have more validity? The method decides something is true when it is tested in this and this way and this result comes out. And everything that doesnt follow this method is not truthfull. But if you cant prove the method, your quote becomes dogmatic.

---

Because it is the best method and it is ever progressing with multiple methods in science based upon tenets which is to give us greater understanding. It is the best and nothing is near it to adequately consider as an alternative.

(The validity speaks for itself.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Because it is the best method and it is ever progressing with multiple methods in science based upon tenets which is to give us greater understanding. It is the best and nothing is near it to adequately consider as an alternative.

(The validity speaks for itself.)

---

nothing ever speaks for itself. you give no proof, just rethoric. this is totally dogmatic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

You do learn quickly. :laugh4:

---

XD i had typed something. but i misread what i was reacting to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

nothing ever speaks for itself. you give no proof, just rethoric. this is totally dogmatic.

---

I don't need to give proof. It is pretty easy just to type in Wikipedia "Scientific Method". It's not like referencing some obscure questionable information.

Here, I did it for you:

Quote:

---

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable, to predict future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

---

It's not dogmatic in the slightest.

For definition of dogmatic:
- Stubbornly adhering to insufficiently proven beliefs; inflexible, rigid
- a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I don't need to give proof. It is pretty easy just to type in Wikipedia "Scientific Method". It's not like referencing some obscure questionable information.

Here, I did it for you:



It's not dogmatic in the slightest.

For definition of dogmatic:
- Stubbornly adhering to insufficiently proven beliefs; inflexible, rigid
- a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

---

nothing that you find there provides evidence that this method is more valid then any other.

one thing i would like to point out though, is that this definition of dogmatic is a scientific definition since the proof that is being referred to is scientific proof. if you would bother to read thomas of aquino (which i wouldnt recommend because it bloody hard to read XD) or read about his work (which i think is more preferable) you would see that religion does offer proof to back their position. only the proof is not scientific and therefor no longer regarded as proof in this era.

i say dogmatic because you offer me nothing but your word that it is valid and that of wikipedia, and i have to believe you because it speaks for itself. for me that is insufficient.

wikipedia does a good job explaining me what the method is, and i will not dispute that, yet it does not offer any proof or argument of why this method is the most valid one or maybe even the only valid one. i dont think it intends to, but that doesnt make a difference in this case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

i say dogmatic because you offer me nothing but your word that it is valid and that of wikipedia, and i have to believe you because it speaks for itself. for me that is insufficient.

---

It comes across as being angsty because some where in your past Science has some how "wronged" you, thus you go all rage about it, when the reality of Science it is pretty much the best thing since sliced bread as in examining and explaining this world with credible and independently viable ways. This has been repeatedly demonstrated time upon time that is it in the common sphere of knowledge, and it doesn't take much effort to find out for yourself.

The way it works with constant and careful scrutiny which can be independently replicated reliably and the host of internal measures makes it the ultimate tool so far created in handling these matters. Compared, lets say, what some one randomly wrote down in a book 2 thousand years ago, with nothing attributing to it.

Quote:

---

wikipedia does a good job explaining me what the method is, and i will not dispute that, yet it does not offer any proof or argument of why this method is the most valid one or maybe even the only valid one. i dont think it intends to, but that doesnt make a difference in this case.

---

Because of the nature of the method itself is the best one. If you know of one which is better, post it right here so we can all see, then we can put both under careful scrutiny. So far we have a 2 thousand year old book being used as the source of all knowledge and being touted as the alternative, which is absurd itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Actually, it is because you are being angsty because some where in your past Science has some how "wronged" you, thus you go all rage about it, when the reality of Science it is pretty much the best thing since sliced bread as in examining and explaining this world with credible and independently viable ways. This has been repeatedly demonstrated time upon time that is it in the common sphere of knowledge, and it doesn't take much effort to find out for yourself.

---

actually you are wrong, i have never been wronged by science and i am not raging about it, even then, i dont see what that has to do with the discussion. all you offer me is it has been done in the past, it speaks for itself, science rules, it is true because wikipedia says so.

while all i ask of you is this, prove to me that the foundation of the scientific method is true and that the method itself is more valid than any other.

ps kinda low to try and get personal. dont fill in the blanks without having gathered any empirical data ;) your method doesnt allow it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

while all i ask of you is this, prove to me that the foundation of the scientific method is true and that the method itself is more valid than any other.

---

Waste of my time and effort, if you really cared, you wouldn't be asking as you would already be looking it up yourself and seeing I am correct, and if not, you would actually say why not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Waste of my time and effort, if you really cared, you wouldn't be asking as you would already be looking it up yourself and seeing I am correct, and if not, you would actually say why not.

---

if you had even bothered to read the thread you wouldve seen that i already said why not. im asking you a question and you dont give an answer. its as simple as that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

if you had even bothered to read the thread you wouldve seen that i already said why not. im asking you a question and you dont give an answer. its as simple as that.

---

Nope, I answered it and you won't accept the answer, instead giving an unfair request to easily do a dissertation worth of work just to come to same exact conclusion.

all you have told me is something shady like, the nature of the method is the best one. but that doesnt prove anything. you just make a claim which you cant back up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

all you have told me is something shady like, the nature of the method is the best one. but that doesnt prove anything. you just make a claim which you cant back up.

---

That's incorrect, it is easy to back-up and you know exactly where to look but you refuse to. Science methodology is the best one, given the overwhelming evidence and lack of any credible alternatives.

given the overwhelming evidence? the overwhelming evidence is all given within the scientic box, it is all scientific evidence. the christians in 1400 ad thought they had overwhelming evidence for the proof of god.

you say the nature of the scientific matter is the best one. but that is something which cant be proven. it cant be proven scientifically because the foundation of the method cant be scientifically proven, you will accept in your premise what you try to prove. i claim it cant be proven otherwise because at core level there is always something which has to be accepted without it being possible to prove.

the lack of any credible and consistent (if that should be a criteria) alternatives is your best argument. but how objective is this argument? you cant define credible by scientific terms. so you would have to come up with a different criterions. if credible means believable, than the argument fails because there are many alternatives widely believed.