Not to mention what is outside the domain of science. Sadly, this area is essentially culturally off limits so I expect it to remain as is in the short to medium term, perhaps forever.
Nothing is outside the domain of science. It's not about culture, but attitude - science makes everything its domain. Scientific method is generally applicable, it's a universal tool for identifying any kind of pattern that we can possibly identify. Everything else is, in practice if not theory, completely random, but "completely random" is a pattern too, so it too lives in the domain of science.
Later qualified by: "that we can possibly identify". You seem to forget at least one basic circumstance here: that the scientific method is but one narrative. It may be universally applicable, but it is not the only interesting thing that can be said (and what it says is more often than not "we don't know"). The current cultural paradigm (in some quarters), which seem to think that only "scientific truth" is worthwhile, everything else is just random noise is likely precisely what the parent objected to, and that you stepped in to defend.
Incidentally, you seem to agree that there are indeed things outside the domain of science, those things that we can not possibly identify. This is also the reason I'm not as pessimistic as the parent when it comes to the longevity of the current, scientismically informed paradigm: The insight that the things we can possibly identify are but a fraction of the infinite will surely land sooner or later. It doesn't make the scientific method wrong by any stretch of the imagination, but it will always be just mapping local phenomena (that we can notice), not everything.
If you cannot observe it (directly or indirectly) it is outside the realm of science, likewise if it is not falsifiable (testable) it is not science. Observe, theorize, predict, test. Science 101.
No computational reason, literally zero reason at all. Fundamentally unfalsifiable beliefs are completely arbitrary, and those fundamentally unobservable subjects of those beliefs cannot affect reality in any way - if they could, then they would be observable in principle, and therefore the belief in them would be falsifiable too.
Having proof of nonexistence is completely different from having no reason to believe in existence. There is an infinite number of nonexistent things you might want to believe in. How do you choose which one you like? In my opinion the things where you have no proof of existence and which you define to be causally independent from the universe are the least interesting things to believe in. For example I believe extraterrestial intelligence exists even though I have to proof for it.
Demonstrating that "is" derives from Belief, not Truth. Which I'm ok with, if it is realized. Otherwise, I consider (and therefore believe, but do not know) the risk to be high enough that something should be done about it. Not so unlike how normal people are passionate about others getting their vaccinations.
> They are irrelevant for the question of this thread.
Then why did you mention it? And, you made a claim in response to my question...so what gives? This technique seems a bit unfair.
Regardless: is relevance objective? How is it measured?
Also: note that "are" is a conjugation of "is". This creates a bit of an epistemic problem does it not (considering your comment above)?
> No human can observe unobservable things by definition.
Religion is a classic counterpoint to this. Nonexistence is another. Relevance is another. Omniscience another. There are tons of examples, with new ones coming online every day!
Plus: does defining reality to be a certain way necessarily mean it takes on that form, or might it only cause it to appear to have taken on that form?
Does the word "observe" have any constraints? For example: claimed observations, but that lack a way of measuring scientifically. Could science study this phenomenon?
Nope. Science is a specific tool of thought with a definition that starts with observation. Science might help feed ideas for technological or other sorts of advancement that allows us to observer more than before, but just because it helps science doesn't make it science.
If you cannot observe it / falsify it in principle - not using currently economical approaches, but using any possible current or future tests - then it's not science. If you can prove it cannot possibly be observed or falsified, it's not science.
It also means it's nonsense and doesn't exist.
Science claims totality. Anything that affects reality in any way, is in domain of science.
Not quite science, but this quote from Conan the barbarian is, IMO, nonetheless relevant:
"I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content." ― Robert E. Howard, Queen of the Black Coast
I'm going to go waaaaay out on a limb here and make a guess: you have no proof for this claim of fact?
I am endlessly fascinated how science is held up by its fan base as superior because it is evidenced based, yet when defending challenges to it, any "fact" can be deployed effortlessly, with no evidence required.
> It's not about culture
I strongly believe that thinking is downstream from culture.
> science makes everything its domain
It certainly rhetorically extends ownership to all of "reality" (identical to The Universe, dontcha know), but they certainly do not investigate all that can be.
Here's a nice discussion:
The Nature of Reality: A Dialogue Between a Buddhist Scholar and a Theoretical Physicist
Note that the gloves remain on, as always. (Gee, I wonder if that has anything to do with why humans are perpetually wandering around confused, without knowing it.)
It's a slick technique, especially if it is done intuitively:
Furthermore: do you consider scientists to be a part of science?
If so: how do you know if everything important is actively being worked on by at least one scientist (never mind a near optimal number)? (See also: [1])
If not: how does science accomplish anything? How can only ideas interact with the physical realm, if not through human bodies engaging in work?
> Scientific method is generally applicable
"generally", "applicable"
I am also fascinated at the loose language science fans use when describing their ideology, that is so great because it deals in precision.
> it's a universal tool for identifying any kind of pattern that we can possibly identify.
"identifying"
Here is a pattern, Humans.
Well done, Scientists!
Can you point me to science's study of war, and their strategies for ending it in the near future? It's a pretty important topic, they surely have thousands of the very best minds on it I would think, since it is their domain (in that it is a part of everything).
> Everything else is, in practice if not theory, completely random...
Present a proof.
Just because your ideology is sitting in the throne right now doesn't mean you get beliefs = facts freebies like this, especially when shit talking competing ideologies for that very same behavior is a core component of your marketing/indoctrination strategy.
These conversations remind me of one of my favorite sayings:
"People don't have ideas. Ideas have people."
- Carl Jung
I'd recommend him, but he is a peddler of "woo woo".
[1] From foolswison's link:
"Plenty of scientists are theists. But the ones that do good science leave their theism at the door and try to explain things in naturalistic terms (even if theism is the reason they entered that door in the first place)."
I don't keep detailed records, but I have had easily hundreds of science fans tell me with absolute sincerity and good faith that any scientists that don't behave the way they describe (say, if I was to link them to articles) don't count, because they aren't scientists. (Actual scientists only behave perfectly, of course.) I wonder if science not studying such things (ontology, etc) and thus not constantly tooting their horn about it in the media [2] might have something to do with why their fans have utterly no knowledge of it, and thus believe that it doesn't exist[3].
Maybe not over-reacted, but over-rehearsed. Your debate produces a clear winner, and may appeal to popular sentiment, but I'm not sure any scientist would associate themselves with either side of it.
Belief in science as an all-encompassing ideology is a minority view among scientists. Scientists are usually careful to stipulate that it's not. My parents were both scientists. They're the ones who took my brothers and me to art museums and concerts, exposed us to religions, literature, the love of the outdoors, and so forth.
Maybe 90% of the public have never met a scientist, making it easy to turn us into the bogeyman.
> Belief in science as an all-encompassing ideology is a minority view among scientists. Scientists are usually careful to stipulate that it's not.
I believe that if this was studied carefully (with temporal detail), the reality of the situation would be revealed to be much more interesting than your intuition indicates.
Even the best scientists still have heuristics based consciousness, layers of culture, etc. Consciousness is way more complicated than it reveals to itself (which is what people here are describing, technically / architecturally).
I describe it using Donald Rumsfeld's famous quote: "You go to battle with the army you have." We all wrestle with the limitations of our mental apparatus. Also, reality is always more complicated than any concise description of it. No experienced scientist would claim otherwise.
> I describe it using Donald Rumsfeld's famous quote: "You go to battle with the army you have."
It's a great meme, but all capabilities in existence have not been brought to bear, not even close.
> We all wrestle with the limitations of our mental apparatus.
Agreed, but to very different degrees, and in very different ways (as in positive wrestling vs negative).
> Also, reality is always more complicated than any concise description of it. No experienced scientist would claim otherwise.
a) You 2nd sentence is subject to your first.
b) You have no way to know this. I on the other hand do: I talk to scientists on the regular who make unsound claims. There is nothing about science that renders its practitioners immune to culture, propaganda, ideological blindness, heuristics, etc (despite it being an extremely popular, faith based belief).
My wisdom of commenting is people will always latch in to the worst parts, so you either have to commit to the worst things you write or write in a more bland way.
Regarding your comment I have the same issue with how badly engineers simplifies science, but they usually have a to noble view of themselves being ignorant of what they ignore. Having discussions which offends people needs to be done in a trustfull way even then it is hard, I usually sound like a dimwit or a twat.
>>> Sadly, this area is essentially culturally off limits
Not in my experience. I just got back from a week of playing music in the woods with a bunch of folk musicians. Sometimes we talked about science, but music is for all intents and purposes an orthogonal way of exploring reality. Likewise for many areas of art, literature, etc.
Not to mention what is outside the domain of science. Sadly, this area is essentially culturally off limits so I expect it to remain as is in the short to medium term, perhaps forever.