What is Science?

[Pyrotex]

Never?

American Atheists | About...

Never.

The "State Farm Insurance Company" is a corporation and as such all four words together are capitalized.

But the word "state" is not.

Nor is "farm", "insurance", or "company".

 

The word "atheist" is merely an adjective. It is not capitalized.

[Jway]

Are you sure atheist isn't a noun?

I've checked with two dictionaries that list it as a noun.

 

I interpret what you are saying as it is not intended to be a proper noun. Though you may still insist it is an adjective.

 

But sometimes it is capitalized.

 

From the link I had in previous post:

 

That case – Murray v. Curlett – was a landmark in American jurisprudence on behalf of our First Amendment rights. It began:

 

"Your petitioners are Atheists, and they define their lifestyle as follows. An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth – for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it. An Atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help lead to a life of fulfillment."

 

If I find other examples, what would you suggest I do?

Bury my head in the sand?

[GAHD]

Jway, If in that particular writing we replaced the word atheist with any other descriptor, do you really think it needs capitalization?

Eg

"Your petitioners are Southerners, and they define their lifestyle as follows..."

"Your petitioners are Savages, and they define their lifestyle as follows...."

"Your petitioners are Colorblind, and they define their lifestyle as follows...."

[SidewalkCynic]

The word "atheist" is merely an adjective. It is not capitalized.

As long as the atheists form organizations based on promoting the agenda defined by the designation, I think it is fitting to capitalize, "Atheist."

 

Another reason I do this is that the atheists should be embarrassed that they are accepting of the term devised by those who oppose their agenda. Atheists did not devise the term, because why then would a person who does not know to term belief in gods as "theism," then designate himself in that root term, opposed to the agenda? And, it really gets absurd when hypothesizing the future when "theism" is dismantled, and humans still designate themselves "atheists."

 

And it goes further into, Atheists need to organize philosophical social groupings that promote specific logic and morality (religion).

 

So, if you are offended that I capitalize,"Atheism," then you are evidence that my master plan to take over the world is working. B)

[SidewalkCynic]

Well, by the same logic, ...

 

if religions are a bastion of truth, why can they not agree on anything? Not even what to call themselves.

They have - they divide themselves into logic and morality groupings. Their problem is they are compromising the extended inference of their logic and morality by living in integrated communities. In other words, they are not isolating their philosophical social systems in an effort to determine the worthiness of the system.

[InfiniteNow]

This thread is obviously not about "what is science," but instead a new member with an axe to grind against atheism.

 

On that note...

 

 

 

Sam Harris: The Problem with Atheism - On Faith at washingtonpost.com

 

"My concern with the use of the term "atheism" is both philosophical and strategic. I'm speaking from a somewhat unusual and perhaps paradoxical position because, while I am now one of the public voices of atheism, I never thought of myself as an atheist before being inducted to speak as one. I didn't even use the term in The End of Faith, which remains my most substantial criticism of religion. And, as I argued briefly in Letter to a Christian Nation, I think that "atheist" is a term that we do not need, in the same way that we don't need a word for someone who rejects astrology. We simply do not call people "non-astrologers." All we need are words like "reason" and "evidence" and "common sense" and "bullshit" to put astrologers in their place, and so it could be with religion."

 

<...>

 

"Attaching a label to something carries real liabilities, especially if the thing you are naming isn't really a thing at all. And atheism, I would argue, is not a thing. It is not a philosophy, just as "non-racism" is not one. Atheism is not a worldview—and yet most people imagine it to be one and attack it as such. We who do not believe in God are collaborating in this misunderstanding by consenting to be named and by even naming ourselves.

 

Another problem is that in accepting a label, particularly the label of "atheist," it seems to me that we are consenting to be viewed as a cranky sub-culture. We are consenting to be viewed as a marginal interest group that meets in hotel ballrooms. I'm not saying that meetings like this aren't important. I wouldn't be here if I didn't think it was important. But I am saying that as a matter of philosophy we are guilty of confusion, and as a matter of strategy, we have walked into a trap. It is a trap that has been, in many cases, deliberately set for us. And we have jumped into it with both feet.

 

While it is an honor to find myself continually assailed with Dan [Dennett], Richard [Dawkins], and Christopher [Hitchens] as though we were a single person with four heads, this whole notion of the "new atheists" or "militant atheists" has been used to keep our criticism of religion at arm's length, and has allowed people to dismiss our arguments without meeting the burden of actually answering them." <

more at link

>

 

 

 

 

Those comments were taken from a talk, the video of which is available online in its entirety at the following:

 

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2089733934372500371&hl=en

 

 

 

This is also a nice short (~3m) summary:

 

 

YouTube - Sam Harris: Is Atheism Dogmatic? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSbdsvCrq2A

 

 

 

From the earlier link:

Rather than declare ourselves “atheists” in opposition to all religion, I think we should do nothing more than advocate reason and intellectual honesty—and where this advocacy causes us to collide with religion, as it inevitably will, we should observe that the points of impact are always with specific religious beliefs—not with religion in general. There is no religion in general.

 

<...>

 

The concept of atheism imposes upon us a false burden of remaining fixated on people’s beliefs about God and remaining even-handed in our treatment of religion. But we shouldn’t be fixated, and we shouldn’t be even-handed. In fact, we should be quick to point out the differences among religions.

 

<...>

 

Another problem with calling ourselves “atheists” is that every religious person thinks he has a knockdown argument against atheism. We’ve all heard these arguments, and we are going to keep hearing them as long as we insist upon calling ourselves “atheists. Arguments like: atheists can’t prove that God doesn’t exist; atheists are claiming to know there is no God, and this is the most arrogant claim of all. As Rick Warren put it, when he and I debated for Newsweek—a reasonable man like himself “doesn’t have enough faith to be an atheist.” The idea that the universe could arise without a creator is, on his account, the most extravagant faith claim of all.

 

Of course, as an argument for the truth of any specific religious doctrine, this is a travesty. And we all know what to do in this situation: We have Russell’s teapot, and thousands of dead gods, and now a flying spaghetti monster, the nonexistence of which also cannot be proven, and yet belief in these things is acknowledged to be ridiculous by everyone. The problem is, we have to keep having this same argument, over and over again, and the argument is being generated to a significant degree, if not entirely, over our use of the term “atheism.”

[SidewalkCynic]

BTW, Sidewalk, you obviously do not even BEGIN to grasp what a "straw man argument" is.

Stop using it, until you do some research and figure out how to use that term correctly.

Okay then, what is the argument fallacy being employed in the instance, and why was the commentator unaware of the fallacy?

If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color.

I first became aware of the axiom in 2002, and I have argued against it since then, yet, it reappears as an acceptable argument. And as you can see, even here amongst the critically minded community there are indications of solidarity in regards to this.

[SidewalkCynic]

- science is the behavior

- science is a process

- science is a testable system

- science is the discipline

- science is the state

- science refers to a system

- science is structured approach

 

On this basis, strictly speaking, I see very little overlap. If I replaced "science" with "religion" in above short phrases, and went elsewhere and offered up my many definitions, I believe fellow humans would say, "sounds like you don't have a consistent idea of this this term you refer to." And if they were rude or abrasive, they would tell me (I think) that I obviously haven't thought this through and given the disparity, the term is nonsensical and invalid. If I said, "but, but, but you see, some of my friends, we all came up with these definitions. We are working on consensus." I think the abrasive people in the room would say, "well you and your friends have failed. One of these may be permissible, but they can't all be. Here you have it as a state, there you have it as a behavior, there an approach, here a system. It's all across the board and thus is very inconsistent."

Thank you - this is what I am getting at. There is an incredable amount of disparity as to the definition of science, which seemingly to me, is indicative of the chaotic society we endure. And I sincerely believe the definition I have devised is in the best interest of, not only society, but the scientists themselves - it eventually gives them the responsibility of defining all that there is, including political rhetoric.

[SidewalkCynic]

My points are:

1. your initial "definition" of science obviously reflects a perspective that is somewhat naive;

Really?

All I am trying to do is clean up the diverse and inconsistant understanding of what is science. And you think that is of no concern of mine, or that the inconsistancy is fruitful to the better progression of mankind???

2. your initial "definition" may reflect a hostile attitude toward science;

Maybe, you are a little over-sensitive, because you lack a consice and consistant definition, and are offended that I have devised a good one that has appeared before you on an Internet discussion board and not in more scholarly publication.

3. your question isn't so much a request for information or explanation, as it is an opening "salvo" in what may be a trollish attack;

I am not out to dismantle science, I am out to dismantle theism, and the term "atheism." I am out to correct the definition of science, because I believe it suffers some amount of unintended consequences of the complex and chaotic secular integration of society.

4. I wanted you to see how your question looked from my viewpoint -- thus the carpentry analogy;

You are over-sensitive.

5. any attempt on my (our) part to answer your question must be predicated on:

....5a. how knowledgeable are you of science, its history and its practices?

Well, I am redefining science, you realize, so there is some disagrement as to what you and I consider to be science. In fact, what you may call high school science class is not a class about what ever it is you believe science to be, but more of a review of information defined for human use - Technology. And I can break it down into a more detailed structure:

Naturology

1. Physicology
2. Terrestriology
3. Biology

Do you require further details as to how each of those is sub-divided, or can you figure it out on your own? I mean, how far back into basic technology do I have to go to adequately answer your inquiry of my background?

....5b. what is your intention in being here?

To gather as much information regarding this issue for preperation of publishing the redefining of science for the better evolution of mankind.

....5c. how far back into the elementary basics of "science" do I need to go to begin an adequate answer to your question?

You need to go through it all, from top to bottom. I want the most concise and consistant definition to lay on the world - get it?

 

We have lots of folks visit here who truly have a thirst for knowledge, or curiosity about a particular subject, or something they want to share.

 

We also have some folks who come here with a personal vendetta against "science" (for various reasons).

Well, with you on the board, I'm sure they all retreat.

 

I'm just trying to make your visit here as comfortable and as productive as I can. Welcome to Hypography. B)

Thanks, you're doing a wonderful job of demonstrating my point that the definition of science causes just as much uproar as the definition of "religion," and of "atheism."

[Mercedes Benzene]

Really?

All I am trying to do is clean up the diverse and inconsistant understanding of what is science. And you think that is of no concern of mine, or that the inconsistancy is fruitful to the better progression of mankind???

 

It's impossible to come up with one, precise, agreed-on definition of what science is. I don't know why you're trying to do that here.

 

Science has extensive and well-documented philosophical roots. The metamorphosis of "what is science" over time shows that we cannot be in complete agreement. But what history has shown us is that science is an effort to expand our understanding of the universe through methodical research and experimentation. I would even go as far to say that a goal is to better human existence and condition.

 

I can show a picture of someone working in a lab to a 5-year-old, and they would tell me that it's science. Same with a picture of an astronaut repairing the Hubble telescope, or da Vinci dissecting a monkey.

If I showed them a picture of me mopping a floor, they would say that it wasn't science.

Now, I hate to say that "what science is" is obvious just by looking at it... but I'm not scared to say that it's almost that simple.

 

I guess I just don't see what your goal is? What do you hope to accomplish?

[GAHD]

... science is an effort to expand our understanding of the universe through methodical research and experimentation...I can show a picture of someone working in a lab to a 5-year-old, and they would tell me that it's science. Same with a picture of an astronaut repairing the Hubble telescope, or da Vinci dissecting a monkey.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but don't you see some inconsistency here?

 

daVinci dissecting a monkey; learning about the monkey

Person in the lab: are they learning about things or applying their knowledge? Is it science or engineering?

an astronaut repairing the Hubble telescope: is is really science?

A mechanic repairing the rear differential on a sedan: is it really science?

An astronomer using the Hubble to learn about a distant star; that's science.

[Mercedes Benzene]

daVinci dissecting a monkey; learning about the monkey

Right. Dissection is how we first learned about anatomy. Once we got over the stigma of handling a dead body we were able to uncover how anatomical systems work. As science progressed, we were able to refine our knowledge and techniques. Now we're exploring microscopic processes in hopes of even better understanding of how life operates.

 

Person in the lab: are they learning about things or applying their knowledge? Is it science or engineering?

It's both application AND learning. Everything is built off of some foundation. Once you learn a technique previously discovered by someone else, you can expand! We first had to discover what exactly matter was. We moved on to discover the components of matter (like electrons). Then we learned how electrons interact. Then we can begin to classify compounds, and learn the discreet interactions between them. Soon we're saying things like: dienes react with dienophiles with a single transition state. Now we can build drugs that end up saying lives. And the biologists explore, and are able to tell us exactly why these compounds have the cellular interactions they do.

 

an astronaut repairing the Hubble telescope: is is really science?

Yes. Oversight made what should have been a super-telescope act like a fogged up bathroom mirror. So what did we do? We went up and re-ground the mirror until it functioned as originally planned. But how did we know what to do? Well, we were able to understand the interaction of photons with certain materials. We create terms like "focal point" or "conic constant" to explain these scientific discoveries and apply them to an engineering feat (so yes, it is engineering in practice, but it's also certainly science).

 

...rear differential...

Sorry, I have NO idea what that is.

[GAHD]

...rear differential...I have NO idea what that is.

 

It's the gearing on a rear wheel drive car that allows one wheel to spin at a different speed than another, particularly useful when you're turning.

 

I was making the analogy of a mechanic repairing a component of a car and an astronaut repairing a component of Hubble, is replacing defective components really a science?

[Mercedes Benzene]

I was making the analogy of a mechanic repairing a component of a car and an astronaut repairing a component of Hubble, is replacing defective components really a science?

No. I do not believe that replacing a defective part is really a science. However, the reasoning behind the replacement is scientific. I also do not think it's fair to compare replacing a car part to repairing the Hubble.

By replacing the gears in the car, you're enabling yourself to drive to the grocery store.

By replacing the mirror of a telescope, you're allowing yourself to explore the universe, and learn more about how galaxies form, about the life cycle of stars, etc. You're expanding human knowledge.

[GAHD]

What if you're using the car to test the efficiency of the drive train? Semantics and assumptions obviously play a fairly large role.

 

The way I look at it it's fairly cut and dry;

systematic application of knowledge is engineering.

systematic accretion of knowledge is science.

 

Engineering and Science often use each other but they are distinct things IMO. Distinct things that are often confused due to the close relationship they have.

[lemit]

All right, everybody. Could you take your little spat about language to another thread so we could get back to the original question?

 

Moderators? Could you help?

 

There are a few things on topic I'd like to discuss, and probably a few more apologies to give. For example, there might be a few people who would want an apology for the first paragraph here.

 

--lemit

[Mercedes Benzene]

It seems to me that we're still on the original topic "What is Science," despite some vitriolic wording.

 

The moderators are aware, and are taking measures to make sure that everyone discusses in a respectful manner. That's what we want here!B)