Is Science a Product of Human Invention?

[FinixUnion]

Is Science a Man made Invention or something else? I think it's a man made invention. But I need more opinions.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Is Science a Man made Invention or something else? I think it's a man made invention. But I need more opinions.

What might be the alternative? We stole the idea of science from jellyfish?

 

[FinixUnion]

I was debating another science enthusiast, and he was insistent that religion was man made, and that science wasn't. He posted to me:
"I don't think science is man made, though. any somewhat sentient organism uses it. some just don't realize it. "see something -> try something -> did it work? -> no, ok so try something else ->yes, ok do it again" is a pretty common thing."

He claims the method isn't man made, but refined by man. I still claimed other wise. Just the idea that an animal is using what seems to be science, is still a man made invention.

 

[Office_Shredder]

"see something -> try something -> did it work? -> no, ok so try something else ->yes, ok do it again"

This is not science. Science requires developing theories that make future predictions, then testing those predictions. Trial and error attempts to figure out how to do something is not science

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The scientific method is a broad body of methods used to determine facts about the world around us and invent new tools. The fact that other living organisms may employ some form of observation --> hypothesis --> experiment --> conclude is neither here nor there (and there is no other organism that does do this to the extent and sophistication of man).

 

[Max™]

What might be the alternative? We stole the idea of science from jellyfish?

Don't talk like that around Blasto...
http://stacieponder.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/blasto-717x1024.jpg
That Jellyfish has got a sting!

 

[sweet springs]

Hi.

Is Science a Man made Invention or something else? I think it's a man made invention. But I need more opinions.

Science is Man made as well as language is.

What science treats or describes in other words Natural Law is worth arguing.

Regards.

 

[Evo]

I was debating another science enthusiast, and he was insistent that religion was man made, and that science wasn't.

Science is the study of what is around us. What we call "science" meets certain criteria.

Definition of science Merriam Webster

knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena

Religion on the other hand are stories and myths written by man requiring only faith.

Religion definition Merriam Webster

b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

 

[ViewsofMars]

I earlier posted on PhysicsForums: General Discussion > Politics & World Affairs > Topic : Tennessee to teach the controversy
(msg. #158 https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=589518&page=10)

On that topic I gave a link (http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?recordid=11876) to a document from the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES and Institute of Medicine. If you read further down from article I present you will read:

"As SCIENCE, EVOLUTION, AND CREATIONISM makes clear, the evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith. Science and religion are different ways of understanding the world. Needlessly placing them in opposition reduces the potential of each to contribute to a better future," the book says.

"SCIENCE, EVOLUTION, AND CREATIONISM is the third edition of a publication first issued in 1984 and updated in 1999. The current book was published jointly by the National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine, and written by a committee chaired by Francisco Ayala, Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences, department of ecology and evolutionary biology, University of California, Irvine, and author of several books on science and religion."


The book is now free. You can read it here: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=1

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The best analogy for this that I can think of is probably from Robert Anton Wilson.

"Don't confuse the map with the territory."

Because things like math and science are based in part on observation of preexisting phenomenon, and since math and science are abstract/intangible themselves, people have a tendency to blur the line between what already existed and what was contributed by humans. Where the example of the scientist and their science may seem to have a fuzzy relationship with reality we have no such trouble with the cartographer and their maps. Science is a tool for describing phenomena in reality the same way that a map is a tool for describing phenomena in reality. No one questions that maps and cartography are "man made" because there is an obvious and tangible distinction between "map" and "territory". Now if only they could see the similarity with science and math.

 

[FinixUnion]

The best analogy for this that I can think of is probably from Robert Anton Wilson.

"Don't confuse the map with the territory."

That was a very excellent way of putting it. During my argument, I brought up something similar to that. I was trying to explain that abstract ideas seem to be a human thing. It is what appears to separate us from other primates. Not to mention, I also find that animals do exhibit, at times, religious behavior. This happens when they correlate random phenomenon with their behavior. That could in time create a religious belief, with supernatural answers. Science, doesn't allow such answers. "Thou Shalt not use the supernatural."

 

[Ryan_m_b]

"Don't confuse the map with the territory." - Robert Anton Wilson

That was a very excellent way of putting it. During my argument, I brought up something similar to that. I was trying to explain that abstract ideas seem to be a human thing. It is what appears to separate us from other primates. Not to mention, I also find that animals do exhibit, at times, religious behavior. This happens when they correlate random phenomenon with their behavior. That could in time create a religious belief, with supernatural answers. Science, doesn't allow such answers. "Thou Shalt not use the supernatural."

I am unaware of any serious scientific studies that present data for religious behavior in animals. You have also fallen into a common fallacy of assuming that science has a dogmatic statement against the "supernatural", but you cannot use unfounded explanations because it gets you worse than nowhere because not only does it have no explanatory power it often gives you the illusion or explanatory power. Of course science investigates the supernatural and supernatural claims, it just never finds any evidence for it.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I am unaware of any serious scientific studies that present data for religious behavior in animals.

FYI: There is this famous claim for superstition in pigeons:

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Skinner/Pigeon/

Whether or not you would put superstition in the same class as religion is another matter.

 

[FinixUnion]

I stand corrected. Not religious behavior, but superstitious behavior.
If we were to allow any supernatural explanations, than science would still be in the realm of alchemy and astrology, and worse of all, ID/Creationism. Science only deals with natural phenomenon, it wouldn't be able to validate a supernatural claim, because then that would lie outside the realm of science. My statement was pretty foolish, although, I was under the influence that science was about the investigation into the natural.

 

[Chronos]

Science predicts the future based on measurable [and measured] properties of the environment. Religion predicts the future based on supernatural authority. Both methods produce incredible results, but, science produces repeatable results.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

FYI: There is this famous claim for superstition in pigeons:

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Skinner/Pigeon/

Whether or not you would put superstition in the same class as religion is another matter.

I question the validity of the statement on the basis of one very old paper but I digress.

I stand corrected. Not religious behavior, but superstitious behavior.
If we were to allow any supernatural explanations, than science would still be in the realm of alchemy and astrology, and worse of all, ID/Creationism. Science only deals with natural phenomenon, it wouldn't be able to validate a supernatural claim, because then that would lie outside the realm of science. My statement was pretty foolish, although, I was under the influence that science was about the investigation into the natural.

Science predicts the future based on measurable [and measured] properties of the environment. Religion predicts the future based on supernatural authority. Both methods produce incredible results, but, science produces repeatable results.

I think part of the problem here is the use of the term supernatural. As chronos says if something is measurable then it can be investigated by science, since the vast majority of supernatural claims/beliefs involve some sort of measurable event it isn't correct to say science can't investigate it. How often to we see crackpots on the internet, TV, magazines etc saying "science can't investigate the supernatural" before claiming that ghosts move objects or psychics dream the future etc. Essentially they are saying that there is a measurable phenomenon (they must be considering they are claiming they have measured it) but then saying science can't investigate it. It's wrong, it's a poor argument that attempts to define their beliefs beyond investigation and critique.

 

[FinixUnion]

FYI: There is this famous claim for superstition in pigeons:

psychclassics.yorku.ca/Skinner/Pigeon/

Whether or not you would put superstition in the same class as religion is another matter.

I've read about Skinner's Pigeons in recent psychology textbooks. I believe zoobyshoe was using that as an example. This was a classic experiment, not to mention the fact that the web page was called psychology Classics. This is a real effect. People debate about for Skinner's experiment, but only in the context of whether it is operant conditioning or classical.

 

[rootX]

Science predicts the future based on measurable [and measured] properties of the environment. Religion predicts the future based on supernatural authority. Both methods produce incredible results, but, science produces repeatable results.

IIRC anthropologists have ruled out that science and religion compete with each other and have same purpose. Purpose of religion is noy predicting futures. It neither has to have a supernatural authority.

Personally, I also believe religion serves different purposes which science doesn't and vice versa. It makes no sense to compare the two.

 

[Evo]

Why do people insist to try to compare science and religion? To be completely honest, the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

Why do people insist to try to compare science and religion? To be completely honest, the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

well they both explain things that are mysterious

 

[Evo]

well they both explain things that are mysterious

LOL, yeah but one - science, looks for real explanations, the other - religion, makes up myths.

Science and religion should never be made to compete. That's ridiculous. Religion is fiction, and if people want to believe in it, ok, as long they don't do harm, or try to convince people it's real. Science tries to find explanations for the world around is. So why do some religious people fear knowledge? Science doesn't care about religion, not does it try to debunk it anymore than it tries to debunk fairy tales.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

LOL, yeah but one - science, looks for real explanations, the other - religion, makes up myths.

yes that is the distinction between the two :)

one could then bring up the god of the gaps, etc.

 

[Evo]

one could then bring up the god of the gaps, etc.

But that's just more nonsense.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

But that's just more nonsense.

well in the eyes of a scientifically minded person, yeah

 

[rootX]

well they both explain things that are mysterious

Religion is not about explaining mysterious things. I believe this document explains religions well:
http://www.anpere.net/2007/2.pdf

So why do some religious people fear knowledge? Science doesn't care about religion, not does it try to debunk it anymore than it tries to debunk fairy tales.

Neither I understand why some scientific people feel the urge to devalue and misinterpret religions.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I've read about Skinner's Pigeons in recent psychology textbooks. I believe zoobyshoe was using that as an example. This was a classic experiment, not to mention the fact that the web page was called psychology Classics. This is a real effect. People debate about for Skinner's experiment, but only in the context of whether it is operant conditioning or classical.

My point was that there is a respectable scientific claim that animals can be superstitious. That can be construed as partway toward being religious, depending on the extent an observer equates religion with superstition.

For my money, the more primitive the religion the more it is a collection of superstitions aimed at trying to control the external world: the weather, the hunt, personal safety, etc.

 

[Evo]

Neither I understand why some scientific people feel the urge to devalue and misinterpret religions.

That's not it at all. Religion has a place for people that need it. But it is not science. No one should try to pretend religion is science, or is even remotely similar. Scientific people would like the religious to stick with their religion and stop attacking science, like the two have anything in common, they don't.

 

[FinixUnion]

To say that the scientific method and religious belief don't conflict is ignorant of the controversy, and is practicing wishful thinking.

 

[chiro]

Both science and religion have to at some point work under faith.

Religion works under a different faith though: it requires often a faith that does not make use of controlled observations like science does in the way that they don't use the scientific method. (Funnily enough though, there have been some great thinkers and scientists that have come from very religious backgrounds).

Science does require of course that you can produce results using some formally defined controlled procedure that other scientists can replicate to generate results. From this scientists agree (or disagree) on the results and upon some kind of consensus within the scientific community, results are at some point established.

But the thing is that science does not answer why: people speculate about the why just like priests speculate about Jesus Christ, Krishna, Mohammed, and even what many call 'God' and this reality that we perceive and engage in.

Scientists speculate about these things in different ways. Look at for example Quantum Mechanics. You have the Copenhagen interpretation and you have also the Everett interpretation and even now we have various additions and twists on these kinds of things.

The thing that underlies both science and religion is the nature of uncertainty. We have abandoned the idea that we can have complete predictive power as a result of the results in Quantum Mechanics. Both the scientists and the religious of the world are bound by this even though scientists make highly controlled observations from highly controlled experiments and religious do not.

We are all bound by uncertainty, and scientists if they think that they are less bound by it even with their current understanding of the 'how' should think long and hard about what they are saying.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Both science and religion have to at some point work under faith.

No it doesn't. Faith is the acceptance of a claim without and even in spite of evidence. Science works on the acceptance of claims that have met their burden of proof. People often think and say that science has "faith" when what they are really referring to is that it relies on tentative trust.

But the thing is that science does not answer why: people speculate about the why just like priests speculate about Jesus Christ, Krishna, Mohammed, and even what many call 'God' and this reality that we perceive and engage in.

Of course science speculates on the why for example: "Why does Y happen when X happens" or for a more practical example "why do organisms seem suited for the environment they are in?" Obviously the scientific method is then employed to find answers to these questions. The utterly mundane problem comes when people conflate the use of the term why with some sort of intent/purpose/intelligence.

Scientists speculate about these things in different ways. Look at for example Quantum Mechanics. You have the Copenhagen interpretation and you have also the Everett interpretation and even now we have various additions and twists on these kinds of things.

Yes, science speculates on the basis of previously established conclusions (in turn based on previously established data) in an attempt to construct logical hypotheses to test in order to answer questions about the universe. Saying "it's just a different way" is true but misleading because you neglect to point out that one way is logical and useful in determining truth and the other isn't.

The thing that underlies both science and religion is the nature of uncertainty. We have abandoned the idea that we can have complete predictive power as a result of the results in Quantum Mechanics. Both the scientists and the religious of the world are bound by this even though scientists make highly controlled observations from highly controlled experiments and religious do not.

We are all bound by uncertainty, and scientists if they think that they are less bound by it even with their current understanding of the 'how' should think long and hard about what they are saying.

I have no idea what your point is here. A foundation of science is that there is no absolute certainty whereas many religions not only claim absolute certainty but do so even in the face of contradictions and changes in dogma over time.