Is Scientific Endeavour a Doctrinal Theology?

[Thomas123]

People often refer to false Gods!

I consider that this is a matter of human abilities failing.

False:1.not according with truth or fact; incorrect

Scientific endeavour appears to me to have a theology.

It appears to want to make life better for its fellow humans.
It appears to want to sustain more humans.
It appears to want to make humans live longer.

Are these the aspirational goals of this religious worship?
Many people in the sciences are sincere and well intentioned and much of our modern convenience can be attributed to scientific endeavour.
Is it incorrect to call this worship?

Have these sciences anything to do with objective fact or truth?
Are the Sciences false?

A false God doesn't work!
Is science working?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 1 by Thomas123]

Is this another resurrection of the "science is a religion" trope? Your posts are often too cryptic for me. Never mind. Religion is about people wasting their lives down on their knees trying to please an invisible being who doesn't even have the decency to show up when he is desperately needed. People who pursue scientific endeavors are searching for knowledge about this world we find ourselves in with the hope that some of it can be used to improve our condition during our brief span of life. Such endeavors have given us much, including hope for a better future even in the face of adversity. Religion, with its myriad of gods, all false, has given us nothing that we could not have obtained without it.

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 1 by Thomas123]

I take the Isaac Newton approach: to do science is to be in God's vein and identify God's ways in nature. Thus, out of it, to know God by science, I have Scientific Christian Deism or Christian Scientific Deism!

Isaac Newton, Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton

Science is great fun, right?

[Thomas123]

[Replying to post 1 by Thomas123]

Is this another resurrection of the "science is a religion" trope? Your posts are often too cryptic for me. Never mind. Religion is about people wasting their lives down on their knees trying to please an invisible being who doesn't even have the decency to show up when he is desperately needed. People who pursue scientific endeavors are searching for knowledge about this world we find ourselves in with the hope that some of it can be used to improve our condition during our brief span of life. Such endeavors have given us much, including hope for a better future even in the face of adversity. Religion, with its myriad of gods, all false, has given us nothing that we could not have obtained without it.

I do not want to be cryptic . I want to be plain. Your post brunumb, is a general opinion, ie, the endless searching, the wasting of time, the desire to help, the belief in it's landmark achievements etc. Just flip religion into the place where science is and vica versa and you would have my general attitudes towards both false science and false religion. This again would be a general opinion.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 4 by Thomas123]

What is false science Thomas123?

[Thomas123]

[Replying to post 4 by Thomas123]

What is false science Thomas123?

Thomas123(opening post-Science)
It appears to want to make life better for its fellow humans.
It appears to want to sustain more humans.
It appears to want to make humans live longer
.........
brunumb
People who pursue scientific endeavors are searching for knowledge about this world we find ourselves in with the hope that some of it can be used to improve our condition during our brief span of life.
.......

Thomas123
False: 'not according with truth or fact; incorrect'

What is false Science?

Good intention does not necessarily make for good science. If that was true then many religions would be 'good'.

Accepted good intention in science has resulted in its general movement away from fact and truth towards falsehood.

There are many, many, examples of this.
My family had a Lockdown Online Quiz last night and one of the questions was the percentage of DNA compatibility that the human had with the chimpanzee. The choices were, 75%, 80% or 98% ,the last one being the correct answer. On the same topic, consider this,...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics

 "It is estimated that approximately 0.4 percent of the genomes of unrelated people differ, apart from copy number. When copy-number variation is included, human-to-human genetic variation is estimated to be at least 0.5 percent."

.........

Coloured people were classified as sub human for centuries by both religion and science
Read Allen Mendenhall on this..

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=2214462

Wrong conclusions from false science for convenience, perpetuated today where we use 98% humans as test product.

False science is everywhere, brunumb.

Is science good?, I think it imagines itself to be.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 6 by Thomas123]

The intention doesn't make science good or bad. Science, or perhaps more specifically the scientific method, is our pathway to sifting what is real from what is imaginary in our search for knowledge. What people subsequently do with that knowledge may be good or bad. That is a different issue altogether.

[Thomas123]

brunumb:What people subsequently do with that knowledge may be good or bad.
Thomas123
Science making the bullets but not firing the gun, is a debate that you would loose ,brunumb. There is a natural and unavoidable progressive nature to scientific discovery, that makes it false by default. One falsehood is reasoned upon its previous approximate.

Let's consider what you say here

brunumb"Science, or perhaps more specifically the scientific method, is our pathway to what is real from what is imaginary in our search for knowledge"
.........
Thomas123

doctrine : "a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group"

How is the scientific method not doctrine?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 8 by Thomas123]

How is the scientific method not doctrine?

Because it is a process, without predetermined conclusions. Religious doctrine has no basis other than human opinion and human formulation of ideas and rules pieced together to create the doctrine. The rules and conclusions of the doctrine are predetermined and not found by experiment, measurement, etc. They are essentially made up by humans, which is evidenced by the large numbers of religions and gods humans have created, many of which are incompatible with each other.

The scientific method is a process whereby hypotheses are created to try and explain observations, and the hypothesis is tested by experiment and additional observations which can be carried out by anyone suitable skilled. Anyone can throw darts at the hypothesis and try to disprove it, and this process may result in changes to the original hypothesis until a valid explanation is obtained that is consistent with known laws of physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, etc. If enough supporting evidence is obtained then the hypothesis becomes a theory and is generally accepted to be true.

Religious doctrine goes through none of this process of experimentation, testing, refinement, etc., and in many cases changes are expressly forbidden (eg. Islam). It is in no way comparable to the scientific method, which is a process or methodology for arriving at explanations based on experiment and observation, reproducibility of results, and being subject to refinement, change, or discard as new information comes along.

[Purple Knight]

Yes, absolutely, no doubts about this.

There is clear interest of money in science and the replicability crisis is a thing.

The thing is, people will turn anything into religion that they can get their hot little hands on. Science and logic are religion in the wrong hands, and there are a lot of those wrong hands in the field of science.