Change?

[TinCow]

Global life expectancy at birth in 1900: 31 years
Global life expectancy at birth in 2005: 65.6 years
Cite

That's a nice change...

[naut]

You don't think anything has changed? That people just believe what they are told? Maybe so. But, I'll tell you what has changed, the method by which people have developed these big ideas. Instead of a bunch of Germanic pagans sitting round a fire celebrating the fertility of mother earth and exchanging stories about how they believe everything came to be. Or instead of the Canaanites worshipping Ba'al, Asherah, El and Yahweh because their ancestors dreamed them up. Or instead of Jews worshipping Yahweh, borrowed from their Canaanite neighbours, and believing in a heaven, borrowed from their Greek neighbours. These creative processes have been replaced, to some extent, by rigorous scientific method. Science isn't dreamed up on the spot, it's hypothesised then tested, then experimented, then discussed, then concluded. And if the conclusion isn't conclusive enough, then it's all done again. Even theories have basis in basic physics, otherwise they'd be disregarded out of hand by the rest of the scientific community.

And in this day and age it is your own fault if you are ignorant to the at least the basic principles of the Universe. You don't have an excuse any-more, the information is readily available almost anywhere for you.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I would not go so hard on The Stranger... I mean, from what I saw it as, he is not touching upon any specifics or the living standards, etc. I though he was speaking about the general collective spirit, the culture, the intellectual side. At least that is what I saw it as . I doubt he was simply discounting most of what science has done in practical applications. the only problem is, theory is the grandmother of invention and what seems theoretical today will soon find practical application to-morrow

[The Stranger]

I would not go so hard on The Stranger... I mean, from what I saw it as, he is not touching upon any specifics or the living standards, etc. I though he was speaking about the general collective spirit, the culture, the intellectual side. At least that is what I saw it as . I doubt he was simply discounting most of what science has done in practical applications. the only problem is, theory is the grandmother of invention and what seems theoretical today will soon find practical application to-morrow

you saw correctly :)

science at the top may be questioned, and there it continues to grow... but no one is checking the foundations... no one is looking wether they are even there.

take causality for example, how can we explain that? is it truly so that one thing causes another? or is that the way we immanently look at things? if not, then can we look at it in a different perspective? is it possible for a human being to see one ball touch another and not think that one caused the other? and if not, is that so because it is truly and beyond question objectively TRUE and so that the one causes the other, or is it because we cannot see it different than that?

[The Stranger]

You don't think anything has changed? That people just believe what they are told? Maybe so. But, I'll tell you what has changed, the method by which people have developed these big ideas. Instead of a bunch of Germanic pagans sitting round a fire celebrating the fertility of mother earth and exchanging stories about how they believe everything came to be. Or instead of the Canaanites worshipping Ba'al, Asherah, El and Yahweh because their ancestors dreamed them up. Or instead of Jews worshipping Yahweh, borrowed from their Canaanite neighbours, and believing in a heaven, borrowed from their Greek neighbours. These creative processes have been replaced, to some extent, by rigorous scientific method.

do you have any proof that this method isnt wrong? can you prove without using science, that this method is right. do you believe there is just one objective truth (or many objective truth, but atleast that there is a notion of truth that can be known by humans objectively)? and if so, given the possibility of alien lifeforms, do you believe that would have the same method (given that they are "advanced" enough by our standards).

Science isn't dreamed up on the spot, it's hypothesised then tested, then experimented, then discussed, then concluded. And if the conclusion isn't conclusive enough, then it's all done again. Even theories have basis in basic physics, otherwise they'd be disregarded out of hand by the rest of the scientific community.

true, theories and methods within science (which we would describe as a scientific method) have been discussed, tested, discarded, concluded started again blabla... but not science itself, not the scientific method, which is partially discussing, testing, discarding, concluding, restarting until we come close to that notion of objective truth. BUT what if there is no such objective truth.

And in this day and age it is your own fault if you are ignorant to the at least the basic principles of the Universe. You don't have an excuse any-more, the information is readily available almost anywhere for you.

only if the information presented to me is correct and presented in a comprehensible form. which is debatable.

[The Stranger]

Global life expectancy at birth in 1900: 31 years
Global life expectancy at birth in 2005: 65.6 years
Cite

That's a nice change...

thats actually not a valid point... because 1900 is like the high days of science...

i know what you are getting at though... but thats still not what im talking about.

[ajaxfetish]

That's a pretty epic nonuple post broken by only one other poster, Stranger. I'd be concerned, except that you were addressing different responses in each one, and you'd need some serious use of subheadings to try to fit all that material into one post anyway.

Ajax

[Reenk Roink]

Actually not much has changed in the west. Sure we've gone from Chaos to God to Science. And sages have been replaced by priests who in turn have been replaced by scientists. The upperclass has shifted several times and revolutions happened, but in the end, the people, whoever that may be at any given time, still believe whatever they are being told.

I think you overestimate the influence of science. Thankfully, science's position in free society is still far from absolute, and is certainly nowhere near the influence of religion in the past. I'd venture to say worldwide, religion still trumps science in terms of influence, (if I can indulge in using the blanket terms religion and science like that for convenience). Thank god for that.

The implosion of the idea of logical positivism before it made any kind of permeation into widespread thought as well as Kuhn's attack against the linear view of scientific progress (despite the excesses of postmodernism that also resulted ) pretty much assure that the menace of 'science' never grabs influence it doesn't deserve.

And we could have the philosophers filling the moral void, just as in the ancient Greek times.

What fiction is this? The "philosophers" in Ancient Greek society had a marginal effect on the morality of the masses in that period, probably simply limited to a few young rich men who thought it fashionable to hang around my man Plato and that noob Aristotle. Need I remind you that Socrates was convicted of impiety (even if he may not have explicitly been impious)? Need I remind you that many of the Presocratic 'sophists' who entertained unorthodox naturalistic worldviews never caught on, were reviled in popular plays, and Plato sought to (wisely) distance himself (and Socrates) from them?

I'd say some of greek philosophy had (too much of) an influence on later societies, especially Catholic Europe, but it never enjoyed that in it's own time to such a degree at all. The traditional views prevailed.

I will never understand why people so often undervalue or dismiss the massive material benefits science has brought to society. It has spared countless millions from disease, poverty and hunger and thanks to it we are living in a golden age of technological marvels our ancestors could scarcely have dreamed of.

I don't think anyone here has a problem with the results of science and I think they frankly are as irrelevant to the point at hand as the effects of religion. I believe the OP was thinking more along the lines of how he feels a scientific mindset has prevailed, whereby a commitment to the objective realism of scientific entities is made and a general idea of naturalism is held as the actual model of reality. These are the points under consideration, not whether religion has given us meaning or inquisitions, or science has given us computers or atom bombs.

As to the idea that science has somehow "replaced" religion, I quite disagree. They exist to fulfill entirely separate roles; all science has done is to replace what was only ever a relatively minor, secondary purpose of religion: To explain the baffling range of seemingly bizarre and random natural phenomena that surround us. Does anyone imagine that religion serves no other purpose to those who believe in it?

Great point, you've made it once it before if I recall. I do think there is a bit of overlap which does conflict in some cases, but it's minor as they primary focus of both is quite different. And for one who holds an instrumentalist (or any anti-realist conception) of scientific entities, with no ontological commitment to naturalism (heck, one can even get away without a methodological approach to inquiry), the best of both worlds is available in pure harmony.

The problem arises however, because of how people conflate different things in these kind of discussions. You can see it in this very thread, using my old example of creationism. You'll have people make the (and not to sound rude but...) bat**** retarded claims that creationism is untestable and unfalsifiable while evolutionary science is not, and when pressed, you can easily see the confusion in that instead of taking a quick glance and creationist claims such as the age of the earth with something to do with tree canopies and what not (tested and most likely falsified by the way), they will go attack it on metaphysical ground due to the creator present, at the same time oblivious to the own metaphysical principles.

The maddening inconsistency in these discussions about the 'worldviews' of the two, some go and attack the religious worldview and then go and 'defend' science with the results, probably blissfully unaware of how they are just talked about two separate things.

Science is more than that, it has become a way of life, with its own morals and customs.

I don't really understand the point of trying to equate science and religion like this?

I mean of course there are other aspects to both science (process, research programs) and religion (ritual) which are huge parts, but they aren't really relevant at all, just as you yourself say the results aren't. What (at least I thought) you were trying to compare was religious and scientific worldviews...

There are ethics followed in science and results from science do influence morality, but science doesn't have morals in the way that religion does...

[naut]

The maddening inconsistency in these discussions about the 'worldviews' of the two, some go and attack the religious worldview and then go and 'defend' science with the results, probably blissfully unaware of how they are just talked about two separate things.

do you have any proof that this method isnt wrong? can you prove without using science, that this method is right. do you believe there is just one objective truth (or many objective truth, but atleast that there is a notion of truth that can be known by humans objectively)?
[...]
BUT what if there is no such objective truth.

Do you have any proof that this method is wrong?

It matters not one ounce whether it is right or wrong. The fact that it works is the reason it is still in use. Things don't survive multiple centuries if they are not useful and do not work. And why would you attempt to disprove science with anything other than science? If you are lucky may be able to disprove with a mystical method, but why would you? There's no point in doing so as they are completely different concepts.

If there is no objective truth, then the claim "there is no objective truth" is an objective truth, and therefore invalidates itself. There is objective truth. A objective descriptive truth would be, "I am 5 foot 11 inches", I am 5'11", this is objectively true. I'd argue this further, but it becomes a loop of semantics.

and if so, given the possibility of alien lifeforms, do you believe that would have the same method (given that they are "advanced" enough by our standards).

And?

true, theories and methods within science (which we would describe as a scientific method) have been discussed, tested, discarded, concluded started again blabla... but not science itself, not the scientific method, which is partially discussing, testing, discarding, concluding, restarting until we come close to that notion of objective truth.

Not true. The methods we used today have been refined from principals of experiments to a more elaborate and diligent process to eliminate human error and factor out bias, while maintaining and increasing reliability and accuracy and validity. And then a scientist discloses his experiments and publishes them and lets other people see them. And if the other people may try for themselves, or they may criticise the approach.

only if the information presented to me is correct and presented in a comprehensible form. which is debatable.

That's perfectly acceptable. We live in secular societies where you are allowed to study ideas, reject ideas, embrace ideas, formulate ideas, as and when they suit you. That is a change. You want to do that before the rise of science then you either become a monk and learn about god, or you challenge authority and die a heretic.

[The Stranger]

i only have a short time, so ill come back later for more.

but i want to make one thing clear.

I think there is a difference between practical religion (going to church or other traditions and such etc) and religion as a system (which becomes institutionalised, basically the idea of religion, the way it works etc) and also a difference between practical science (testing atombombs, finding antidotes for sickness etc) and science as a system (which as also become institutionalised)

I'm not comparing practical science with practical religion or systematic religion. i'm comparing systematic religion with systematic science...

Do you have any proof that this method is wrong?

It matters not one ounce whether it is right or wrong. The fact that it works is the reason it is still in use. Things don't survive multiple centuries if they are not useful and do not work. And why would you attempt to disprove science with anything other than science? If you are lucky may be able to disprove with a mystical method, but why would you? There's no point in doing so as they are completely different concepts.

ehm... i think religion has been in play and control far longer than science (as a controlling system). I doubt science will make it that far. but thats a bit besides the point, if objectivity is not the standard, but pragmatism is, than that challenges the very nature and foundation of science. and the mere fact that one system superceeded another doesnt mean it is a better system per se. When the roman empire changed from democracy into imperialist authocracy, its not automatically true that the empire was a better system. Same can be said about communist revolutions in china or russia.

If there is no objective truth, then the claim "there is no objective truth" is an objective truth, and therefore invalidates itself. There is objective truth. A objective descriptive truth would be, "I am 5 foot 11 inches", I am 5'11", this is objectively true. I'd argue this further, but it becomes a loop of semantics.

i'm aware of that. but that loop ends when you change it into "there is no objective truth which can be known beyond all doubt by humans with their present cognitive abilities."
i cannot prove it, you cannot disprove it, so its an impasse. it has been for a long time.

That's perfectly acceptable. We live in secular societies where you are allowed to study ideas, reject ideas, embrace ideas, formulate ideas, as and when they suit you. That is a change. You want to do that before the rise of science then you either become a monk and learn about god, or you challenge authority and die a heretic.

only in a very limited time on a very limited place on the globe.

[Mete Han]

The only thing that doesn't change is the few rule the many,
The poor, uneducated masses and their problems are ignored,
and they cannot help themsleves because they are made to believe in something and they are kept entertained
and as long as their basic needs are satisfied they are happy to live with life leftovers.

human psychology makes the regular man imagine the world through comparing himself with his neighbors
and as long as he has at least as his neighbor has it means everything is just fine.
most of the people will never question any belief as long as their hormones are making them feel good enough.

and i think this is a big problem

because as human beings we can do better than other animals we share the world with
or maybe we haven't evolved out the animal.

[The Stranger]

I think you overestimate the influence of science. Thankfully, science's position in free society is still far from absolute, and is certainly nowhere near the influence of religion in the past. I'd venture to say worldwide, religion still trumps science in terms of influence, (if I can indulge in using the blanket terms religion and science like that for convenience). Thank god for that.

agreed but that doesnt mean that the comparison doenst hold. and i was talking solely about europe (or the western countries).

The implosion of the idea of logical positivism before it made any kind of permeation into widespread thought as well as Kuhn's attack against the linear view of scientific progress (despite the excesses of postmodernism that also resulted ) pretty much assure that the menace of 'science' never grabs influence it doesn't deserve.

i dont really get this :P (not saying it isnt relevant)

[/QUOTE]Great point, you've made it once it before if I recall. I do think there is a bit of overlap which does conflict in some cases, but it's minor as they primary focus of both is quite different. And for one who holds an instrumentalist (or any anti-realist conception) of scientific entities, with no ontological commitment to naturalism (heck, one can even get away without a methodological approach to inquiry), the best of both worlds is available in pure harmony. [/QUOTE]

it is possible to combine practical religion and science with each other or its systematic counterpart, but it isnt possible to combine the scientific metasystem with the religious metasystem. and the scientific system is dominating right now. when we are looking for justification nowadays we no longer look at god but we look at numbers, experiments and polls. a ruler is no longer justified because he rules in the name of god. though it is true that you can't really say that he rules in the name of science nowadays, the scientific revolution did have a large impact on our worldy beliefs and how we eventually developed and devised the current system.

I don't really understand the point of trying to equate science and religion like this?

I mean of course there are other aspects to both science (process, research programs) and religion (ritual) which are huge parts, but they aren't really relevant at all, just as you yourself say the results aren't. What (at least I thought) you were trying to compare was religious and scientific worldviews...

you are right, i didnt express myself rightly there... i cant remember what point i was trying to make... so you can just ignore that post.

There are ethics followed in science and results from science do influence morality, but science doesn't have morals in the way that religion does...

true. atleast they claim to be without morals, and the practise in itself is.

[TinCow]

thats actually not a valid point... because 1900 is like the high days of science...

Yeah, I know. I tried to find stats for pre-industrial times but they were very non-scientific. Decided to go with a hard stat rather than an estimate.

[Andres]

i doubt they choose the most trustworthy one, they choose the one that is the most appealing, spectacular. or else they dont choose at all and just stick with what they have been taught. most of these people that believe in the laws of physics nowadays would have believed in the laws of god 500 years ago.

I agree that the ancestors of those who are nowadays posting "", "" and "" in response to a religious fellow and making comments like "so much stupidity!", "how you can you not see how you're wrong" were probably shaking their heads in disbelief because of the stupidity of the guy who thought there were many gods, that lightning bolts were thrown by some bearded fellow and the waves on the sea made by another bearded fellow while every sane being knew of course that there was only one bearded fellow and you had to worship him while properly dressed, not while dancing naked.

I also agree that both said ancestors and said present day people posting smileys and condescending comments don't really know/knew what it is they were/are talking about, since the vast majority of both groups read it in some book or heard it from some other guy, without ever checking things for themselves.

Yeah, many things change, but some things will always stay the same. "I don't really know what I'm talking about but I'm right and you're wrong because I'm taking the position of what is the consensus nowadays! You're teh stupid!" is from all times.

That doesn't mean scientific findings didn't bring us much good, though. Just compare our living standard to the living standard during the time people believing in one God were making fun of people believing in many gods.

And as has been said much better before: science and religion shouldn't compete, they play in different leagues.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Good post Reenk. Thanks for swinging by the BR, wanax.