The debate "No person should have a narrow mind in only following a single faith science or ideology" was started by
October 20, 2018, 2:05 am.
20 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 6 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Matthew354 posted 5 arguments to the agreers part.
TheExistentialist posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
Matthew354, vikash2306, tenyiyi, KateLynn, wth64828, crispsandchips, astatine and 13 visitors agree.
TheExistentialist, NitinTher and 4 visitors disagree.
"...metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, and axiology"
If you read my post in full, you'll see that I fully concede the limitations of science. Literal quote from my original post: "Science, for example, cannot answer questions such as purpose"
"So here is one major limitation I find with science: a human life is nothing more than data or a statistic, and that science should be separated from the state equally as much as church/religion or face the dangers."
This is where we disagree. Science ought to be an integral part of how we manage and govern our society. Science, while it may not tell us "right" from "wrong", it can inform us on these subjects. When we decide that violence is wrong and we draft laws in regards to assault for example.
Science should enter the legislative realm in-so-far as it can inform us of culpability on the subject. A person who has suffered trauma to the frontal cortex and therefore lacks impulse control should probably not be held to the same standard as a person who is in full control of their faculties.
Science can inform us on the type and degree of suffering an organism can feel and thus we can draft legislation to help ease that suffering. This is perhaps most crucial in the use of animals as scientific models. We have legislation that places higher consideration on more complex life forms. Round worms for example don't process pain the same way a mouse does and so we should enact laws that reflect that difference.
Science can also tell us how we learn and thus we should adapt curriculum in schools to reflect that research (new research into how we process written language for example should change the way we teach reading and writing).
Science can inform us on brain development and should thus inform our policy on mind altering substances like ETOH. Science informs us on hazardous materials and thus should play a part in how we manage industry that uses such materials (containing radioactive material, cancer causing chemicals, poisonous gases, etc...).
Science also is the only methodology of knowledge acquisition which self corrects (meaning that the method itself error corrects over time). So we can use it to inform us on which laws have no basis in reality. Abstinence only curriculum laws for example are proven (statistically) to be less effective at preventing teen pregnancy, STD's, etc.... and so for the good of society and the individual, abstinence-plus curriculums should be enacted based on science
"However, my point still stands in finding truth in reality is that science is only a tool and part of natural philosophy, and there are many kinds of under appreciated philosophies that have been overshadowed by the many fields of science. For example: metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, and axiology."
science came from natural philosophy, it is not a part of it. rather a more refined upgrade. natural philosophy is just philosophy. it explores nature through thought and logic rather than objective experimentation.
science is the only tool we have to find knowledge. although it has its limits, and truth may be found elsewhere, knowledge cannot. even if religion or philosophy come to a real truth, it is still a guess and not a certainty.
if for example, one claims to see a sheep in a field, but is actually viewing a very hairy dog, there may still be a sheep hidden behind a hill outside of his sight. that person may have said a true statement, but it was made in complete ignorance. only by confirming the information objectively does it become knowledge. science is the only path to objective knowledge we have.
furthermore, the division of science is not a final form. we divided and subdivided the disciplines in order to discover the details of our world, but that was just step 1. we are now bringing to combine the various disciplines into a complete view of reality, and that is also science. so science need not be many paths, but a single search for truth that started looking at every tiny corner before coming back together. biochemistry is necessary in our pursuit of medicine, whereas biophysics is necessary to build humanoid robots with accurate movement. the future of science is in bringing it all back together into a single, complete, view of reality (the ultimate goal).
reality is not so conveniently compartmentalized
"In schools science is evidence based so it has every right to be taught there"
I don't have a problem with that, I mean the uncontrolled and immoral experiments made by the state. Experiments like the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics' reviving dead dog experiments, testing of chemical weapons with human test subjects, and of course Nazi Germany's infamous Josef Mengele who used young gypsies as experiments to make artificial Siamese twins.
This is accordance to Paul Feyerabend idea: "There must be a formal separation between state and science just as there is now a formal separation of state and church... scientists may be consulted on important projects, but the final judgement must be left to the democratically elected bodies."
Really, it should be up to our representatives to tell us what experiments are conducted, and their say how science can be limited.
Faith and ideology are both extremely subjective and should really be only taught conceptually and historically. Science is objective in the sense that it's evidence based and it's facts don't really change.
Science should absolutely not be removed from the state. Change is barely being made for climate change because of how hard people fight to diminish the facts. In schools science is evidence based so it has every right to be taught there
I have been researching science for years, and you are making assumptions that I get all my answers from the Bible. I really don't. And just to be clear, I know that science is not a thing, but a process backed with empirical evidence and results that can be repeated (repetition is key for the evidence to significantly help the experiment to be conclusive).
"There is also no such thing as "single science". Science is a process involving multiple lines of inquiry and multiple fields of study. Science is a method of answering questions through the scientific method. The limitations of this methods must be acknowledged however. Science, for example, cannot answer questions such as purpose."
Don't lecture me about this one, because I fully understand what science is due to my study of it. And yes, I do understand the value of science in studying the natural world and many fields like chemistry, physics, and marine biology. However, my point still stands in finding truth in reality is that science is only a tool and part of natural philosophy, and there are many kinds of under appreciated philosophies that have been overshadowed by the many fields of science. For example: metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, and axiology.
And don't get me wrong, I love science. I am having a strong focus on chemistry in college right now with environmental science sprinkled in, but I am fully aware of its limitations. So here is one major limitation I find with science: a human life is nothing more than data or a statistic, and that science should be separated from the state equally as much as church/religion or face the dangers.
O hahahahaha that changes things
Due to the limitations of the posting, I mean to say: "faith, science, or ideology." I couldn't put comas in the post.
I agree with the other posters. perhaps you should research what science is and how it found what it found instead of just reading the conclusions as if they came from a holy book.
Faith science? That is an oxymoron. Assuming out of the five definitions of faith you're using the, belief without evidence definition, science needs evidence to be accepted. Science isn't even a thing. It is a process. Also science isn't single? I am going to be a marine biologist and I still have to study physics, chemistry, and oceanography just to fundamentally understand marine biology. Unless you disagree with the scientific process I don't see why this is even a statement being made.
First off, I'd like to establish that some methods of finding "truth" are superior to others depending on the subject. Question regarding the natural world for example are best answered by Science. Questions of purpose are best answered by religion and philosophy. Faith is simply the suspension of inquisition and the believe in something despite any evidence for it or in the face of evidence against it. Ideology is simply a system of ideas, so it's not a method of truth finding at all.
There is also no such thing as "single science". Science is a process involving multiple lines of inquiry and multiple fields of study. Science is a method of answering questions through the scientific method. The limitations of this methods must be acknowledged however. Science, for example, cannot answer questions such as purpose.
Religion and philosophy are fields which can answer some questions that science can't. Morality, purpose, beauty, etc... are questions science cannot answer. However, these questions can be informed by science and thus "Faith" is not a method of truth finding as it requires the suspension of further inquiry. If you take, on the basis of religion coupled with faith, the position that the earth is 6,000 years old; you willfully suspended the inquisition into the scientific data that says the earth is much older than that.
Therefore, I'd argue that you must know the type of question you're asking before choosing the best methodology by which to answer said question and that "faith" should be avoided at all costs in the deliberation of truth vs false.
Just to make things clear, one should seek the truth how reality works, and it is narrow minded to seek truth by just adopting only a single science, faith, religion, or ideology. To also paraphrase, humanity does not make progress or advances in being narrow minded, and would only use a faith, science, religion, or ideology as a tool to help seek the truth.