🧵 what does science mean?
Anonymous at Fri, 6 Sep 2024 10:44:08 UTC No. 16363595
A recent discussion on religion at work turned into science, with one guy declaring:
>you only need to believe in two things, evolution and science
He then went on to say how crazy space was, and how is it 'even there?'.
I also had a highschool friend years ago who said:
>I think science was inventws by cavemen
I asked what he meant, but it didn't go any further. He and his father also ridiculed me and became irate when I said humans are classified as great apes, saying 'M8, I ain't some fuckin' munkee!' And when I told them that all races are within 99.9% genetically similar, they said scientists are lying.
So what can be done to give a grounded and educated belief in science and what that statement even means?
Raphael at Fri, 6 Sep 2024 13:01:58 UTC No. 16363722
>>16363595
Cavemen didn’t have a high enough iq to invent science
Anonymous at Fri, 6 Sep 2024 14:33:22 UTC No. 16363830
>>16363595
"Scientia" used to mean certain knowledge for the medievals. Empirical data did not meet the requirements of scientia and because it was susceptible to flawed senses. The true sciences were theology and philosophy, which could be argued from axioms logically, like geometry. They accepted divine revelation as a suitable axiomatic starting point, even if many now wouldnt, and argued and developed deductions based off of that. So, the trinity is more certain a piece of knowledge for a medieval than the sky being blue. The logic of the trinity has been tested and found to be conlcusive, but my eyes could be lying. This is why theology was called the Queen of the Sciences. It was the most certain of all.
Its with the growth of natural philosophy, which is philosophy at root based off of its dependence on empirical inquiry, that starts to displace this notion of "scientia".
Science, incidentally, comes from the root word to cut and seperate.
What science actually is is something that I've had professors in philosophy of science refuse to commit to. Is biology a science in the same way physics is a science? Is sociology a science? Where does science end? Where does it begin?
The easiest answer to give is a Wittgensteinian one in which theres not single essential set of charateristics for something to be science. Rather there is a family resemblance across "sciences". Some of them share this feature, some of them that feature, but there is no exemplar of all the features, and none of them are identical to other family members and there is no single trait they all have. But when you put them together you can see they all fit together in a network of relationships.
Anonymous at Fri, 6 Sep 2024 14:46:50 UTC No. 16363855
>>16363830
The network of relationships I would see here is a critical theory, analyse, testing, measuring and final analyses of data gathered. This could then apply to many things, but I would generally say things that can be measured and quanitified in someway, like how we can measure infared light, without being able to see it with our natural eyes.
That being said, based upon your assertion, how would you give that to the layman so that they can better use it and grasp scientific theory.
What I tried to explain to my friend is that what defines a great ape, varies and is not confined to the stereotypical characteristics of say, a chimp, but also includes the full variance of all apes, humans included. He and his father could not get cross that bridge, and argued vehemently that 'we aint munkess, scientists talk shit! Do I look like a munkey to yah?!'.
Also, why did my colleague break his beliefs into two criteria: evolution and science, as though two separate things? How would you change his mind?