• HopingForBetter@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    7 months ago

    Starting with a given is required, otherwise, as others here have said, anything goes.

    The difference is that religion starts with a given that is absolute. If conclusions are incorrect, the understanding must be questioned because the given is absolute.

    Science, on the other hand, regularly questions the given. If conclusions are incorrect (e.g. Mercury in retrograde dilemma) then the given is questioned until we have a better understanding. For science, there is no final solution because the posibility that we were wrong and will understand better the more we observe is science.

    • BossDj@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’m not sure if you meant to reply to me or the other guy…

      as others here have said, anything goes.

      I’m the one who said that

      Science, on the other hand, regularly questions the given. If conclusions are incorrect (e.g. Mercury in retrograde dilemma) then the given is questioned until we have a better understanding.

      But all of our understanding is through our senses. All measurements taken, all tests, all new “data” is gathered using our senses. The assumption of science is that our senses are real.

      • HopingForBetter@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        Yes, and if you keep going on that speculation, you arrive at two options.

        1. Keep assuming our senses are real until there is a reason not to.

        2. Assume our senses are not real and attempt to discover what reality is.

        Either way, science doesn’t care because it’s not about being right, it’s about figuring out what is. Put another way: Change theories to suit facts instead of facts to suit theories.

        • BossDj@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          What speculation? I haven’t speculated at all.

          I have no reason to believe senses are fake. Science is the study of our observations. That’s what it is. Ergo, we assume our observations are real. I’m not arguing at all that they don’t exist. But science starts with the “understanding” that our senses are reality.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        The assumption of science is that our senses are real.

        You keep asserting this and I am not seeing you provide evidence for this. How did you look into the minds of anyone doing an experiment in history to see this?

        • BossDj@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          You literally cannot make an observation without the senses. You can’t DO an experiment without using your senses.

          I’m really confused by the misunderstanding. I do assume the senses are real. I teach science. I’m not trying to disprove it.

          Any steps or methodology includes facts and observations. Which you acquire through senses.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Right but that doesn’t mean that you have a prior assumption. Your students aren’t starting from philosophical first principles they are learning the methods of science long long before they will ever learn the philosophy that is used to justify it. And as a scientist/teacher you know historically this is exactly what happened. We observed and then we derived, not the other way around.

            The problem with all the presup arguments is they can’t accept that with very very few exceptions actions proceed thoughts. They depend an underlying basis for the universe and epistemology then not finding one they declare god and fuck off. And it goes all the way back to Plato.

            • BossDj@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              I feel like you’re going beyond anything I’ve said.

              I had to look up this presup you keep saying. I think you’re just defending science or something because you feel threatened by what I’m saying. Maybe you hated me using the word “assumption”. I’m not a skeptic. I’m not trying to convince anyone that religions have the same weight as science or anything. I’m an atheist. Science is my living.

              Science begins with an assumption that the senses are real. That’s it.

              Caveman and fire analogy? Yes, started with an observation using senses. Then the questions came. And seeking understanding of the observations. That’s all well and good; great even. Science is the study of our natural world and that is only perceived through our senses. Even when our senses seem to be wrong, like water bending light. It was through further observation that we get new, better information. Cool that senses are used for other things as well. Even before science, and even by other living things.

              As long as there exists some possibility that we’re all in a computer simulation, our senses are an assumed reality. I’ll repeat though, that doesn’t make anything more or less likely, it just is what it is.