> if it isn't accessible by science it isn't reality, it's delusion.

That's a terrible philosophical outlook. It is to be ridiculed as much as flat Earthers. Who argues that nonsense?

> Science does say: "This is true to the best of our knowledge."

No, it doesn't. It says here's the model that best fits the observations we have. Nothing to do with truth, and not even relevant, to what I said, profound truths. It makes no metaphysical claims, no ontological claims, requires a philosophical model for its limited epistemic claims, and it says nothing about the human experience as such. It doesn't answer as to the essence of humans, as to the very experience of reality, as to the nature of reality, as to the source of reality, as to morality, as to meaning, and so on. Science is useful only in its limited practical scope, nothing more.

I'm not sure what you even mean.

[removed]

[removed]

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

> I think a sound argument could be made that "scientization" of a wide range of values, institutions and other non-scientific ventures has cause significant harm to science.

True....but they are so far ahead and have so much momentum, I am very confident they are fine.

Now, if a rival ideology was to arise....well, they may not be as resilient as they would have been if they'd monitored their flock more carefully. Time will tell I suppose.

> By labelling a whole range of capitalist western cultural values, practices and structures as "scientific", ranging from capitalist economics, western "racial" categories, political institutions, etc... the failures in those structures and the genocide and discrimination they've enabled have permanently made a lot of people skeptical about the whole idea of "science" across the board.

For their sake, let's hope someone doesn't come along who'd be so shallow and opportunistic as to exploit that weaknesses, and the many other ones.

Maybe there's a grain of truth there

>> Is this to say that it is a fact that numbers are never fudged within the practice of science? > > > > You are free to verify and question them. You don't have to take them for granted. It's not that science is never wrong, it's that you are allowed to correct it and many people have done so before you, so it's pretty good most of the time.

I will ask more directly: is it a fact that numbers are never fudged within the practice of science?

>> By what means have you acquired comprehensive knowledge of the entirety of reality? Science?

> Mostly heuristics. Which ain't as good as science and often wrong, but it gets "good enough" results faster.

What does "good enough" mean, in quantitative terms (% correct, objectively)?

When others resort to heuristics, do you have no issues with it?

For example:

>> But humans seek a deeper understanding of reality, not accessible or relevant to science.

> That is utter bollocks.

Why are heuristics here "utter bollocks", but yours are "good enough"?

>> Do you know for a fact (as opposed to believe) that deeper understandings of reality are not available via religion?

> Yes. If you can't poke it with a stick, than it's not part of this reality.

Can you poke emotions, the comprehensive, physical/metaphysical phenomenon, with a stick?

Also: can you link to any authoritative scientific resource that makes this claim?

> Your deeper understanding is meaningless when it can't interact with this reality. And when it interacts with this reality, you can just do science on it.

So says your heuristics. Are your heuristics equal to reality?

> And when it interacts with this reality, you can just do science on it.

Is "science" all one can do?

Does only science have utility?

Is "science" what you are doing here today?

> Also the level of understanding that science provides is already so insanely more detailed than anything you can ever hope to find in a religious text, that even called it "deeper understanding" is just nonsense.

How does advancement in science render other ideas nonsense, necessarily? Please explain the physical cause and effect relationship - the actual one please, not your heuristic estimation of it.

> Religion doesn't even give you really basic understanding of how the world works.

Says your heuristics. How much actual (non-heuristic, non-imagined) knowledge (as opposed to belief) do you have about religion anyways?

>> And are you asserting as a fact that the entirety of the content of all religion is pure fantasy?

> Some of it might be "based on a true story", but largely fantasy, yes.

What does "largely" mean, in quantitative terms (% fantasy, objectively)?

> That's why we call it religion, not history.

Actually, that is your imagination.

Perhaps if your religion metaphysical framework and its leaders were more adamant that their followers try to care about the truth, its followers would be able to realize they are speculating and use the resources available to discover truth.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/religion

Delusion comes in many forms - religion is one, Scientism is another.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

I suppose my point is man's abilities are evolved abilities - or they're not. If you dismiss injection of self-reflection by a higher power, what else can they be? We can only jump so high. Live so long, Think so far.

Be a night shift security guard for somewhere that's closed at night. Basically read, play on your phone, or whatever most of the night.

You still haven't actually said anything. "I offer your comment." ok and what?

My personal belief is that as a whole, humans utmost purpose simply solving greater and greater problems as we advance as a species. That’s my view as what we are as a collective anyway.

On an individual level, it’s completely up to you to decide. Some people prefer to relax and enjoy their time without stress, deadlines etc. But others cannot stand doing nothing and simply feel compelled to do literally anything to keep them busy.

Both types of people are acceptable. But one side is more here for the ride, and the other is here to create the ride.

Of course there’s more complexity to the differing types of humans around, and the roles they take on whilst existing with us at this time.

Simply put - you could say there’s “doers” and “existers” both have purpose and fulfilment, but on different ends of the spectrum

> Are you asking if science is capable of accurate divination or are you questioning my seeming certainty that psychology can provide accurate guidance on human behaviour?

"my seeming certainty" is a nice way to describe your assertion of fact: "While psychology is a young science that is still working out fundamental principles—it's still a science and will be able to confirm which of those behaviours actually are healthy."

Science can discover some things, but what percentage of the whole it discovers is unknown.

> If you're asking about predicting the future with accuracy—science is more into predicting the future with probabilities rather than with accuracy.

Scientific Materialist's claims about what science will or can do on the other hand....

> If you're asking how I can justifiably say psychology will be able to provide accurate guidance of human behaviour, it already does to a limited extent.

> We're only now gaining the tools we need in order to see what the problems actually are and the field faces a lot of stigma from religions and from it's youth and immaturity (including not a small amount of sheer lunacy),

Is your consideration comprehensive?

Are you describing religion as it is, or might you be describing your (subconscious) model of religion? What says science/medicine on the matter?

> but give it time

I will grant science as much leeway and consideration s as its disciples grant religion.

> You'll probably find it interesting that it seems to be confirming collectivist views more than individualist ones.

Religion has done that for far longer than science...granted, they don't walk the talk well, but give it time.

> I think it's far more likely that psychology will simply confirm which aspects of religions and philosophies line up with actual human behaviour rather than invent new ones.

"Confirm" is an interesting word. Nice and ambiguous.

> A lot of people have been thinking on these things for a lot of time and we've got lots of good answers—science can eventually tell which ones don't work in practice.

Science can assert which ones don't work in practice, but whether their assertions are accurate is another matter.

I'm not entirely sure of your question. Are you asking if science is capable of accurate divination or are you questioning my seeming certainty that psychology can provide accurate guidance on human behaviour?

If you're asking about predicting the future with accuracy—science is more into predicting the future with probabilities rather than with accuracy. It appears to work pretty well within specific domains that we seem to understand well and poorly for general domains that we don't.

If you're asking how I can justifiably say psychology will be able to provide accurate guidance of human behaviour, it already does to a limited extent. We're only now gaining the tools we need in order to see what the problems actually are and the field faces a lot of stigma from religions and from it's youth and immaturity (including not a small amount of sheer lunacy), but there is solid work being done. It's successfully challenged many preconceptions of what drives human behaviour in fields of addiction and crime and it's shown that authoritarive structures are healthier and more effective than authoritarian ones. It does face structural difficulties that make it extremely difficult to get good science done and extremely easy to just see cultural bias reflected back—but give it time.

You'll probably find it interesting that it seems to be confirming collectivist views more than individualist ones. I think it's far more likely that psychology will simply confirm which aspects of religions and philosophies line up with actual human behaviour rather than invent new ones. A lot of people have been thinking on these things for a lot of time and we've got lots of good answers—science can eventually tell which ones don't work in practice.

> Is this to say that it is a fact that numbers are never fudged within the practice of science?

You are free to verify and question them. You don't have to take them for granted. It's not that science is never wrong, it's that you are allowed to correct it and many people have done so before you, so it's pretty good most of the time.

> By what means have you acquired comprehensive knowledge of the entirety of reality? Science?

Mostly heuristics. Which ain't as good as science and often wrong, but it gets "good enough" results faster.

> Do you know for a fact (as opposed to believe) that deeper understandings of reality are not available via religion?

Yes. If you can't poke it with a stick, than it's not part of this reality. Your deeper understanding is meaningless when it can't interact with this reality. And when it interacts with this reality, you can just do science on it.

Also the level of understanding that science provides is already so insanely more detailed than anything you can ever hope to find in a religious text, that even called it "deeper understanding" is just nonsense. Religion doesn't even give you really basic understanding of how the world works.

> And are you asserting as a fact that the entirety of the content of all religion is pure fantasy?

Some of it might be "based on a true story", but largely fantasy, yes. That's why we call it religion, not history.

>When I talk about "science" I'm talking about the scientific method, which I think is good.

Science is composed of a lot more than that.

> Since I like the scientific method, I am ok with the scientific method becoming the dominant motivator for human decision-making. If that was the case, we could have resolved climate change sooner and put more money into renewables.

Could have.

Does science teach its followers to have curiosity about whether their predictions of the future, or counterfactual reality, are actually true?

>Soo yeah... I would prefer the scientific method to be the main framework people think in, not sure what you're point is.

Part of my point is that like religious people, people who have been ideologically captured by science are also unable to distinguish between their beliefs, facts, and the unknown.

As proof, I offer your comment.

When I talk about "science" I'm talking about the scientific method, which I think is good. Since I like the scientific method, I am ok with the scientific method becoming the dominant motivator for human decision-making. If that was the case, we could have resolved climate change sooner and put more money into renewables. Maybe the coral reef wouldn't have been obliterated if it wasn't for religious leaders. rip

If religion was less prominent, people would also be freer. Abortion wouldn't be so controversial, transgender people wouldn't have to fight as hard for their rights, etc. (Btw I'm not saying "if people believe in the scientific method more, then we would be free" I'm saying "with a lack of religion, people would be freer")

Soo yeah... I would prefer the scientific method to be the main framework people think in, not sure what you're point is.

> Science is not a religion it's a method to approach problems.

If you deconstruct it into its constituent parts, applying some abstraction in the process, I propose that one will find that people's psychological relationship with science is extremely similarly to that with religion.

Faith, or more accurately the cognitive processes that underlie it, are fundamental to human beings - it is our evolved nature. And simply declaring it to be gone does not make it go away - although, it can certainly make it appear as if it has gone away.

> The scientific method is valueless and therefore useless as any kind of ideology.

The scientific method has no volition, it must be implemented by humans....and humans loooooove their ideologies.

> Or calls to "follow the science". Also a ridiculous statement.

Now we're talking - but consider: what percentage of the people who subscribe to the ideology are able to realize and acknowledge that?

> No, because it works. It's a completely pragmatic position.

How pragmatic is climate change?

> if it isn't accessible by science it isn't reality, it's delusion.

Have you a scientific proof of this fact?

> Science does say: "This is true to the best of our knowledge."

So do religious people.

Is this all that science (and its disciples) say?

> The numbers aren't fudged

Is this to say that it is a fact that numbers are never fudged within the practice of science?

Note: I am not asking for a prediction of the average quality of science, I am asking precisely about this specific claim.

> You don't have to believe the gospel.

Opinions seem to vary on this. As I recall, it wasn't all that long ago that there was an international advertising campaign on the matter.

> It's all just a experiments, predictions and replication, and you are free to join.

It is often claimed to be the sole source of truth - this too is a part of what "science" is, comprehensively.

>> But humans seek a deeper understanding of reality, not accessible or relevant to science.

> That is utter bollocks.

By what means have you acquired comprehensive knowledge of the entirety of reality? Science?

> Humans like to hear pleasurable stories, they don't care about gaining an understanding.

This seems fairly true - take your comments as a prime example, and those of other atheists in this thread and others.

Wilful ignorance is a human problem, not solely a religious problem. If you disagree, consult science on the matter.

> If they wanted to have a deeper understanding of reality, they'd do science.

Do you know for a fact (as opposed to believe) that deeper understandings of reality are not available via religion?

> But the stories science tell might not be the ones they want to hear and they can get a little complicated, as they are based in reality, not fantasy.

Might this be a two way street? Do you perhaps believe yourself to have a direct line to reality itself (or perhaps: act as if you do, without any conscious awareness of it)?

And are you asserting as a fact that the entirety of the content of all religion is pure fantasy? And if that isn't what you're saying, would you mind stating what it is you are intending to say, in less ambiguous terms?

No. Science inherently can't give answers to questions on "what to do" It's not an answer machine. It just helps in fact seeking .

>High risk of child death tends to lead to more children, not less.

That's just a correlation, nothing more. Even trying to prove a direct causation is super difficult. Kant's objections against the vaccines were pretty en vouge at the time. And most importantly scientifically "correct". Whatever that means.

Law systems are not based on science. law systems are based on morale systems. Nothing in nature implies that the rule "do not kill" is inherent. It just makes morally sense.

You can build with scientific facts whatever death cult you want for example. First rule is to kill as much humans as possible. Try to use as much technology, organization and empirical evidence on how to kill a human as fast as possible and as many as possible. And so on. Oh wait. That's exactly what happened already in Germany 1940

I believe that religion has some advantages over science, one being that it can be arguably better at dispelling Maya....or, the sensation of omniscience that is a side effect of consciousness.

Might there be some artifacts of Maya within your words, and in the thinking that underlies them?

Is it only the religious who are infected by delusion?

In a religious context, what is the difference between moral behaviour and healthy behaviour?

I'm pretty sure all behaviour can be viewed from a scientific context. Science can't tell you which behaviours are moral and which aren't—but it can tell us which are healthy and which aren't.