the prevailing opinion is that "science is always right". — TheMadFool

:sad:
This is absolutely NOT the prevailing opinion, especially among scientists.

Maybe. Go on.

This state of affairs in re the scientific worldview begs an explanation and the one that comes to mind is that scientific claims are considered incontrovertible truths, very unlike claims made by other worldviews. — TheMadFool

Yeah, no it's the opposite, some scientific theories are only considered 'the best theory we currently have' so long as there is no data to the contrary... and people are constantly and actively looking for data that might not fit those theories.

Over the years a number of theories have passed that test so many times, that people have come to consider them 'incontrovertible truths'. Which is why they currently have the authority they do. There's nothing wrong with that in itself, I'd say.

What maybe is a problem, to be charitable to your post, is that because of these succes, science has gotten an aura that might be abused and a bit overused at times. Abused for example in political discourse or pseudo-sciences, and overused maybe in cases like morality where it's isn't entirely clear that the scientific method necessarily would be a good method for it.

If science was always right, then the SpaceX manned mission wouldn't be considered a test flight. Every space mission is a test of our current scientific knowledge. One common saying among scientists is that "You only get the right answer after making all possible mistakes".

Perhaps this privileged position is not unearned - it has repeatedly proven itself over the centuries since Copernicus kickstarted the scientific revolution. — TheMadFool

The Copernican Revolution certainly changed our worldview from a central position to an outlying position. I would give kudos to Galileo for starting the Scientific Revolution in that he laid out the rules of the scientific method which is basically a cohesion of Rationalism and Empiricism.

With an understanding that we live in a shared world that follows the same rules for all of us then there should be some similarities in how we experience the world. Quantum theory may be trying to explain the calculus of how we are both experiencers of the world as well as active participants in the world simply by experiencing it. Our experiences are caused and are then causes of events in the world.

Yeah, no it's the opposite, some scientific theories are only considered 'the best theory we currently have' so long as there is no data to the contrary... and people are constantly and actively looking for data that might not fit those theories. — ChatteringMonkey

Isn't that part of the scientific method?

I think what we're getting at is that the scientific method is open-minded. It accepts that present scientific explanations might not always be the best, and that there might be a better explanation. This explains why science is the default method - because it simply accepts any testable hypothesis that has been tested numerous times and still has predictive power. Every time you use your smartphone you are testing the science that the technology is based on.

So the only qualifier is that the hypothesis is testable by every human being (even on other organisms in the biological sciences). If it isn't, how can we say that what we know is useful for other human beings?

Isn't that part of the scientific method? — Harry Hindu

Yes it is.

I think what we're getting at is that the scientific method is open-minded. It accepts that present scientific explanations might not always be the best, and that there might be a better explanation. This explains why science is the default method - because it simply accepts any testable hypothesis that has been tested numerous times and still has predictive power. Every time you use your smartphone you are testing the science that the technology is based on. — Harry Hindu

I don't disagree, but I think what OP is getting at is not so much the scientific method itself, but how it is received and use more widely in our societies.

So the only qualifier is that the hypothesis is testable by every human being. If it isn't, how can we say that what we know is useful for other human beings? — Harry Hindu

I wouldn't say every human being, because testing a theory can become very technical and expensive, but you need to be able to verify it with empirical data, yes.

I'm only concerned with those scientific claims that are well-established - having run the gauntlet of tests and retests consisting of both experiments of verification and falsification. These are, in my humble opinion, regarded as facts as opposed to opinion.

If science was always right, then the SpaceX manned mission wouldn't be considered a test flight. Every space mission is a test of our current scientific knowledge. One common saying among scientists is that "You only get the right answer after making all possible mistakes". — Harry Hindu

In the last statement, the quote, there's the indication that when science gets it right it does get it right and there can be no dissent unless you want to be called a lunkhead.

I'm only concerned with those scientific claims that are well-established - having run the gauntlet of tests and retests consisting of both experiments of verification and falsification. These are, in my humble opinion, regarded as facts as opposed to opinion. — TheMadFool

A hypothesis is a scientific opinion. It becomes fact after it has been tested by numerous human beings numerous times.

In the last statement, the quote, there's the indication that when science gets it right it does get it right and there can be no dissent unless you want to be called a lunkhead. — TheMadFool

So is the question then how do you know you have the right answer even after making all possible mistakes? I guess it determines how you define how you arrive at right answers as opposed to wrong ones. I think there's a thread somewhere around here about that.

It becomes fact — Harry Hindu

Exactly, science has the reputation of being the purveyor of, as you put it, facts. Why is it in this exalted position?

I'm only concerned with those scientific claims that are well-established - having run the gauntlet of tests and retests consisting of both experiments of verification and falsification. These are, in my humble opinion, regarded as facts as opposed to opinion.

If science was always right, then the SpaceX manned mission wouldn't be considered a test flight. Every space mission is a test of our current scientific knowledge. One common saying among scientists is that "You only get the right answer after making all possible mistakes".
— Harry Hindu

In the last statement, the quote, there's the indication that when science gets it right it does get it right and there can be no dissent unless you want to be called a lunkhead. — TheMadFool

Well yeah, if it has been tested countless of times over years, than maybe they have a point in calling dissenters lunkheads. It's like running your head into a wall over and over again, that IMHO qualifies as lunkhead behaviour.

I thought I pointed that out - because the hypothesis turns out to be useful for every human that applies it. Do smartphones work the same for everyone despite which religion you follow, or which philosophy you espouse?

Exactly, science has the reputation of being the purveyor of, as you put it, facts. Why is it in this exalted position? — TheMadFool

Because the knowledge the scientific method delivers has proven itself to be reliable on countless occasions.

What's not reliable, and very much in question, is the degree to which human beings can successfully manage new knowledge. If I have a very reliable method of growing potatoes, it doesn't automatically follow that therefore I should eat as many potatoes as I can, as fast as I can.

What's confusing about science is that the methodology is very rational, but our relationship with that methodology is not.

people seem reluctant to disagree that, according to chemistry (science), water is H2O? — TheMadFool

And why should they disagree? Is there some alternative that makes more sense?

I wanted to say something similar. People go against science all the time... when they have some kind of tribalistic, religious or politics agenda that makes them want to. The chemical composition of water isn’t one of those issues, but if it were you bet that somebody would be railing against the libuhral evilutionists and their globalist dihydrogen monoxide agenda.

This state of affairs in re the scientific worldview begs an explanation and the one that comes to mind is that scientific claims are considered incontrovertible truths, very unlike claims made by other worldviews — TheMadFool

Generally speaking science is true or close to the truth. But truth about what? About primitive aspects of the physical world. Science and mathematics are primitive and can't answer the more sublime ontological questions about being and meaning. Lately scientists have had the temerity to pronounce upon all manner of things that are, let's face it, above their pay grade. Dawkins & Co. making philosophically juvenile remarks about God, religion and spirituality etc. It is amusing, even comical. Dawkins is not a good philosopher. Hawking is far far worse. Very often scientists making comments about greater things are like mechanics, who presume their knowledge about engines, entitles them to pronounce upon literature. It don't work that way.

And why should they disagree? Is there some alternative that makes more sense? — jgill

For me the problem is not about science versus religion, per se. It is about knowledge and about ways to knowledge. Some people claim that the only acceptable kind of knowledge is primitive, intellectual, verifiable knowledge that can be shared and 'proved'. Others say there are other ways to knowledge (eg consciousness). The question is: is science the only way to knowledge? That's really what the division is about.

And why should they disagree? Is there some alternative that makes more sense? — jgill

Let's separate natural water (with minerals and salts) and laboratory water (H2O).
Further, the balanced formula for laboratory water:
H2O + H2O <-> H3O+ + OH- (water + water to and from ammonium ion and hydroxide ion)

Very often scientists making comments about greater things are like mechanics, who presume their knowledge about engines, entitles them to pronounce upon literature. It don't work that way. — EnPassant

Couldn't agree more. Well said.

The problem is that scientists have done an excellent job of providing us with all kinds of goodies, and so naturally they have acquired significant authority. And most people most of the time on most subjects don't think things through for themselves but look for some source of authority to reference. So when anyone who has accumulated a lot of authority says something, a lot of folks are going to simply nod and agree.

When it comes to science, this is a very dangerous business. While scientists are very sophisticated about developing knowledge, they tend on average to be quite unsophisticated about our relationship that knowledge. And so they typically use the authority they have earned by developing knowledge to sell us a simplistic primitive theory that more knowledge is always better.

It's entirely reasonable to debate how much knowledge we can successfully manage. But it's ridiculous to assume that human beings can successfully manage any amount of knowledge delivered at any rate. Sooner or later, somehow or another, we're going to pay dearly for blindly clinging to such notions.

Exactly, science has the reputation of being the purveyor of, as you put it, facts. Why is it in this exalted position? — TheMadFool

The usual setup is to compare Objective Facts (science) to Subjective Faith (religion). But religious believers don't accept that their Faith is mere opinion. Instead, they think their information comes from the highest authority, by direct revelation to prophets such as Jesus and Mohammed. Ironically, where all scientists can agree on the chemistry of H^2O, few religions can agree on what makes the water in a church font more holy than water in a well.0

I suppose it was the universal acceptance of such pragmatic natural Facts that promoted mundane Science to its "exalted position" as the sole arbiter of truth about the world of here & now. Unfortunately, Jesus and Mohammed --- whose pronouncements are taken as "incontrovertible" --- are not nearly so unanimous in their "opinions" about the supernatural world. :cool:

I just think that science can be reckless with its authority. Every day there's a new scientific study that dazzles your average layman, and with a little perspective anyone could see is bogus.

Well yeah, if it has been tested countless of times over years, than maybe they have a point in calling dissenters lunkheads. It's like running your head into a wall over and over again, that IMHO qualifies as lunkhead behaviour. — ChatteringMonkey

So, you think the scientific worldview is, to say the least, closer to the truth than other worldviews?

I thought I pointed that out - because the hypothesis turns out to be useful for every human that applies it. Do smartphones work the same for everyone despite which religion you follow, or which philosophy you espouse? — Harry Hindu

So, you too share the same sentiment; the scientific worldview is, let's say, at the top of the list of worldviews i.e. it's the best one?

What's confusing about science is that the methodology is very rational, but our relationship with that methodology is not. — Nuke

What do you mean?

Generally speaking science is true or close to the truth. But truth about what? About primitive aspects of the physical world. Science and mathematics are primitive and can't answer the more sublime ontological questions about being and meaning. Lately scientists have had the temerity to pronounce upon all manner of things that are, let's face it, above their pay grade. Dawkins & Co. making philosophically juvenile remarks about God, religion and spirituality etc. It is amusing, even comical. Dawkins is not a good philosopher. Hawking is far far worse. Very often scientists making comments about greater things are like mechanics, who presume their knowledge about engines, entitles them to pronounce upon literature. It don't work that way. — EnPassant

Why are these other worldviews, you mentioned religion, fading away while science seems to flourishing?

The question is: is science the only way to knowledge? — EnPassant

Yes. What other paths to knowledge are there?

The usual setup is to compare Objective Facts (science) to Subjective Faith (religion). But religious believers don't accept that their Faith is mere opinion. Instead, they think their information comes from the highest authority, by direct revelation to prophets such as Jesus and Mohammed. Ironically, where all scientists can agree on the chemistry of H^2O, few religions can agree on what makes the water in a church font more holy than water in a well.0

I suppose it was the universal acceptance of such pragmatic natural Facts that promoted mundane Science to its "exalted position" as the sole arbiter of truth about the world of here & now. Unfortunately, Jesus and Mohammed --- whose pronouncements are taken as "incontrovertible" --- are not nearly so unanimous in their "opinions" about the supernatural world. — Gnomon

:up:

So, you think the scientific worldview is, to say the least, closer to the truth than other worldviews? — TheMadFool

Yes I do, but I want to say that other worldviews don't necessarily have a whole lot to do with truth. That's not their primary function, I don't think. They're usually more metaphorical than literal.

Yes I do, but I want to say that other worldviews don't necessarily have a whole lot to do with truth. That's not their primary function, I don't think. They're usually more metaphorical than literal. — ChatteringMonkey

Why are there more atheists in this day and age than in the past? What makes people give up a religious worldview, if not that it's about being grounded (in facts/truths)?

Why are there more atheists in this day and age than in the past? What makes people give up a religious worldview, if not that it's about being grounded (in facts/truths)? — TheMadFool

Because Chistianity had Truth as one of its core values and ate its own tail... in short :-).

Because Chistianity had Truth as one of its core values and ate its own tail... in short :-) — ChatteringMonkey

Also because the Christians lost their power over the state, so now they can't force everyone in society to be at least nominally Christian.

The problem is that scientists have done an excellent job of providing us with all kinds of goodies, and so naturally they have acquired significant authority. — Nuke

Someone said that if a fellow says three clever things, he is considered a genius. Scientists have become the high priests of the materialistic world view and their authority concerning primitive truths makes people think they are an authority on all kinds of matters.

Why are these other worldviews, you mentioned religion, fading away while science seems to flourishing? — TheMadFool

Many are now turning against the materialistic philosophy. I guess the people who are not really religious were always there, they are just coming out of the closet.

Yes. What other paths to knowledge are there? — TheMadFool

Consciousness. Many say that knowledge about spiritual reality and God can enter the mind, directly. This is the real division: the materialists say that only the intellect is a way to knowledge. Others say consciousness is also a way. The materialists reject this, often by putting up a woo argument.

There is also a difference between the kinds of knowledge we are talking about. Science is concerned with primitive knowledge about material things. Consciousness is concerned with knowledge about life and being.

What do you mean? — TheMadFool

Science develops knowledge. True.

More knowledge is automatically better. False.

More knowledge is automatically better. False. — Nuke

Knowledge needs to be combined with wisdom. That's where 'religion' comes in.

Knowledge needs to be combined with wisdom. — EnPassant

Wisdom will never be able to keep up with knowledge. Knowledge grows exponentially, while wisdom grows incrementally at best. Thus, the gap between wisdom and knowledge (ie. power) grows ever wider, ever faster.

Knowledge needs to be combined with wisdom. That's where 'religion' comes in — EnPassant

Religion brings wisdom? Tell that to a young girl being stoned to death for becoming pregnant. :worry:

Science is concerned with primitive knowledge about material things. Consciousness is concerned with knowledge about life and being. — EnPassant

Science vs consciousness? Scientists are not conscious? :roll:

As I see it, the scientific worldview has acquired a special status in the modern world - like the joke that ends with the line, "the boss is always right", the prevailing opinion is that "science is always right". Perhaps this privileged position is not unearned - it has repeatedly proven itself over the centuries since Copernicus kickstarted the scientific revolution. — TheMadFool

It is an interesting topic in philosophy generally and philosophy of science in particular. At issue are some of the foundational moves made by, and on the basis of works by, Galileo, Descartes, and Newton, in particular. And one of them is the analysis of scientific problems in mathematical terminology based on measurement of the so-called 'primary qualities' of mass, velocity, acceleration, and so on. Concomitant with this was the designation of other qualities - color, taste, appearance - to the realm of secondary qualities which are said to be in the mind of the observer. And also concomitant is the emergence of the dichotomy between facts and values, as famously articulated by David Hume, which ultimately comes down to the fact that no analysis of what measurably so, can be used to justify what ought to be. Finally there was Descartes' division of mind and body, physical and mental, as separate realms or domains.

That was the modern 'scientific worldview' in a nutshell (although it has begun to shift). But the basic issue is that a methodological axiom, which is, only to deal with what can be known and measured mathematically, has morphed into a metaphysical attitude, which is only that which can be known by those means is real. That reached it highest (or lowest) point with the Vienna Circle positivists. Again, that kind of extreme positivism has fallen out of favour, but it's still implicit in a lot of modern thinking.

So the point is the extent to which the scientific worldview is based on 'objectification', or the definition of the problems of philosophy only in terms of that which is amenable to objective measurement (hence the constant appeal to 'objectivity'). I've recently been reading some of Schrodinger's later philosophical works on that, specifically his chapter on The Principle of Objectification, in his 'What is Life'? It seems to me he (and Heisenberg) in particular became very much aware of the implicit assumptions behind objectifification, as a consequence of the radical discoveries they were both involved in the early 20th century. That marks a point where the modernist assumption of the separation between observer and observed began to crumble. And with it your neat divisions between subjective and objective, fact and value.

Because Chistianity had Truth as one of its core values and ate its own tail... in short — ChatteringMonkey

Also because the Christians lost their power over the state, so now they can't force everyone in society to be at least nominally Christian. — Marchesk

It seems that facts are not on the side of some worldviews e.g. religious ones. Religion was so prominent in history primarily because, as Marchesk pointed out, it had "power over the state" and probably had a very "effective" thought police corps. Once the power waned, religion lost control over people who, quite naturally, began to question religious doctrine and looked to other forms of acquiring knowledge of our world - rationality and empiricism. Naturalism began to overtake revelation and this trend is continuing to the present day.

The question is, are some worldviews so out of step with facts that they're doomed to go out of fashion as people gather more and more information? Alternatively, is it a must that worldviews always have to conform to facts? I mean religion these days has the reputation of being out of touch with reality and to that extent undesirable but that doesn't detract from its history as the most popular worldview for over two thousand years now. Isn't this proof that worldviews needn't always be fact-based?

primitive truths — EnPassant

You make it look like humans are devolving into lower and lower states of intelligence. Why do you call scientific truths, "primitive truths"? As far as anyone can tell, science is the new kid on the block and that kid seems to be leading the vanguard in our quest for knowledge.

Indeed, factoring in our monumental ignorance, despite our loud claims that humans have accumulated vast amounts of knowledge, it would be prudent and a sign of wisdom on our part to not be so quick to dismiss nonscientific domains e.g. religion, spirituality, etc. as nonsensical hogwash.

It seems people conflate science with rationality; not surprising since science is the poster boy of rationality. However the two are different. All science is rational but not all that's rational is science. I say this because, if memory serves, Thomas Aquinas and perhaps other religious figures too put in a great deal of [rational] effort to prove the existence of an immaterial spiritual dimension. Science, by and large, belongs to the materialistic tradition and outright rejects the spiritual and immaterial, which is fine so far as the physical world is at stake but is an impoverished outlook once we reckon possibilities, possibilities of things beyond what our senses can perceive.