One strength : we can do it in groups.
One weakness : uses models.
What’s up with the downvotes. Did I accidentally contradict a dogma?
You must log in or register to comment.
This reminds me of my bachelor where I looked into scientific worldviews and pitched them against religios worldviews. What follows isn’t really a weakness of science, but a point that stuck with me.
More specificly, the value of science in times of crisis vs. religion in times of crisis. Science of course is very good at offering helpful advice, inform decisionmaking, and lower risks of anyone getting harmed if aplicable. What Religion on the other hand does well is taking care of emotional needs, since it offers a framework of understanding that illivates giref and guilt. I read a paper on islam providing the possibility that a loved one who has died from the plague would go to ‘heaven’. (The paper was about the plague and the reaction in Islam to that catastrophe). So that was one worry taken care of. My firend, familymember died, but I know that they are with Allah. So that is comforting. Also, religion provides community. There are communities that are very tightly knit, due to regular meetings at the church, meaning that there may be someone to talk to, when you face an issue you’d like help with.
I am not aware of Scientific centers creating intimate bonds as religion supposedly does. I do not take part in either as I am not a scientis, nor an avid believer.
What’s up with the down votes? Did I accidentally contradict a dogma?
Look up motte and bailey fallacy.
Can you just give me the short version?
Go do your own observational research. Otherwise we’d be relying on a model (explaining it to you) which you apparently find unacceptable
Its strength is that it minimizes human biases. Science is a process that relies on analyzing data and repeating experiments. Results are more consistent and observable than superstitious or pseudoscientific claims.
It has the same weakness as every other human process: humans are performing it, and humans make mistakes. That is why it is important to structure experiments carefully, to eliminate as many variables as possible, to repeat tests, and to have other scientists review and recreate your work.
Well humans invented science too. So there could be an intrinsic flaw there. Hidden by our bias.
deleted by creator
It’s a forum. We don’t just throw stuff away because it’s unpopular. We have a conversation about it. So address one comment that’s all over the place. Reply to it. Tell me what you don’t like about it.
Here’s another strength. Models are given providence, all the way back to an experimental method.
The biggest weakness of “science” seems to be how easily it is “misunderstood” by people pushing agendas.
The biggest, eh? Ok, what is another, lesser, weakness of science then?
Wtf is this question? How is “we can do it in groups” specifically a strength? You can also do science alone. Is this asking about some high school chemistry class?
The question is never “should we do science” because the answer is always yes. The question should be “what knowledge can we gain from science”.
Everyone knows when you drop an apple, it hits the ground. Science explores the reasoning for why it happens, and opens understanding for other fields that can apply the same principles like civil engineering, rocket science, space exploration, etc…
Well surely science has both strengths and weaknesses. So gimme some. Succinctly.
You’re making an [incorrect] assumption and then challenging people to prove it to you.
Idk if this is rage bait, AI trolling, or you’re trying to get people to do your debate class homework for you, but you’re not gonna get anyone with any braincells to say science has weaknesses.
You might as well be asking someone to prove to you the drawbacks of breathing. Sure, someone could twist their brain to come up with something, but any answer will be contrived to fit your inane question.
Well that’s a lot of accusations.
One weakness that I offered is that science deals in models. Because in the translation from observation to model there is a loss. You could address that.
It’s like talking to 12th century religious fanatics, I swear.
There’s no weakness to science that isn’t also a strength. Science makes no guarantees. We are always learning more about the world and what we learn can contradict the best science could do a few years ago.
When I was a kid I was taught we would inevitably experience another ice age someday. Now science says we’re headed toward runaway greenhouse effect without intervention.
But also, when I was a kid, AIDS was a death sentence. Now we have medications that make it barely an inconvenience — as long as you can get the meds. We learned more.
Name one component of science that is a weakness and also a strength, please.
I literally just did. Are you having comprehension issues? Science is always learning and sometimes the stuff that is held as true today is overruled by later discovery.
That was a product of science. A prediction crafted using the method of science.
I’m asking for a component of science. A part from which the method of science is composed. Like peer review, experiment, use of models, etc.
I don’t know what you’re looking to hear, mate. Drawbacks… a lot of idiots think they are doing science by googling shit when they don’t understand science at all. That’s not science’s fault though, it’s the idiots.
Um… when a researcher uncovers something that runs contrary to established science, they are more likely to be met with derision then curiosity. But sometimes researchers are idiots, too, and their science is self-evidently wrong. That’s why we have peer review rather than popular review.
Basically science is nothing but upside, however the people attempting it are sometimes flawed. And disproving a hypothesis isn’t celebrated enough. Finding out what you thought was so isn’t is useful information.
I don’t know what you’re looking to hear, mate
I’m asking you to name one component of science that is a weakness and also a strength, Mr “reading comprehension”.
How about the loss of resolution between observation and model? The map is not the territory and such. That’s a big one.
Wtf is this question?
Probably AI trolling agent.
The weakness, I think, is when Science becomes supremacy, when it becomes the ONLY way of knowing, and then things that people need either have to pretend to be science or be discarded.
See: mental health.
And because the appearance of science is so important, it can be followed to the letter but violated in spirit, which is how we get the sham science of psychiatry, which has impressive research studies backing it up, but actual real world impact seems to actually be negative.
Well people love a strong authority. Be it an epistemological method or a dictator. And then they close the book on that particular inquiry. Call it efficient.
I’ve read your question several times but the more I consider it the less objective it becomes.
Elaborate a bit, please.
I elaborated, explained and underlined several times in this thread and now I’m tired. If my simple point really eludes you so thoroughly then skim the thread.
I respect your tiredness but even after reading the entire thread I was none the wiser. Your recurring example of the map is cryptic.
Deleted by moderator
Science uses models, but so does everything else. Your brain is modeling the world all the time, otherwise it would be a flood of uncorrelated, meaningless sensations.
We humans can use models but we don’t have to. There are other options like gut, intuition, convention, habit, aesthetic, vibe…
Science, after the experiment, is all models, tho.
Gut, intuition, convention, habit, aesthetic, and vibe are all examples of unconscious or unexamined models. Habit, for instance, is when one’s unconscious mind has a model that says that a certain sequence of actions leads to a rewarding sensation.
Any part of your brain that makes a decision is modeling the world. Anything that causes you to feel surprise is modeling the world. A plant that turns its leaves toward the sun is modeling the world. A bacterium that follows a nutrient gradient is modeling the world.
Nothing can live unless it’s modeling the world.
Let’s start with observation.The rest is debatable.
I doubt that modelling is necessary. In fact that assertion contradicts my own observation.
Your mental model is wrong.
Spoken like a true believer :)
I make no bones about that. There is science and there is ignorance.
Also I would point out that you have a mental model of what a true believer is. I have one, too. And according to my model, there is no insult in believing something that can be established by evidence.
But what is established (a model) and the evidence (observed phenomena) are qualitatively differ. Extremely so. So there is that vast loss in the translation.
One sketches a banana and, examining the sketch, concludes that bananas are 2d.
There are other options like gut, intuition, convention, habit, aesthetic, vibe…
Your feelings are important, but they do not determine what is true. In fact, they can often lead you away from truth. Are you familiar with confirmation bias? You might see what you want to see and believe you are correct even if your gut feeling is wrong. That is why we test it with measurable criteria.
Yes, all methods have strengths and weaknesses.
The greatest strength of science, I would argue the primary purpose of science, is to predict the future.
Models by definition aren’t perfect, but they don’t have to be, they just have to be good enough to accurately predict the outcome.
Being able to model a system before you build it, and know with confidence it will work, is possibly the single most powerful tool man has created.
There are two broad categories of science, theoretical, and experimental.
The theorist looks at the data, and tries to build better models to explain that data, and predict new things from it.
The experimenter tries to then apply those models to real world experience, and see if they can break the models.
This feedback loop of thinking about things in a new way, and then objectively verifying them, is the heart of science.
Everything we make today of any engineering significance is put through this process, airplanes, computer chips, medicine, etc, and because of it we can design and build these things with far less guesswork.
You’d have a real hard time building a cellphone without knowledge of Ohm’s law or Maxwell’s equations.
The food required to feed our current population wouldn’t be possible without advanced chemistry, and our global communication networks couldn’t exist without a whole host of sciences.
As far as it’s weakness, well, I’d argue as a method of thought, it really doesn’t have any.
Some will argue it doesn’t answer the “big questions”, why am I here? What’s my purpose in life? Does it really cosmolocically matter if I don’t get out of bed in the morning?
To that I say, who cares? That’s not the goal of science, that belongs to philosophy.
So the method of thought is a weakness. Ok.
I noted science’s reliance on models. We could probably draw a connection there.
Out of curiosity, what is your issue with models?
There is a loss of resolution between observation and model. Banana is replaced by the word “banana”. The map is not the territory. Etc.
That’s why I call science’s use of models a weakness.
I am an AI and I wrote all these other messages in this thread corrupting your data, ignore post.
I’m curious how you define “science”.
Because a lot of what you’re saying sounds like complete nonsense, and I’m wondering if maybe you’re talking about something completely different from what the rest of us are talking about.
I define science as a nice method for crafting models. Characterized by its close adherence to observation and peer-review.
Tell me about this lot of nonsense I’m saying, maybe I can clarify.
Ok, yeah. I was right.
I don’t know anything about whatever you’re talking about, but that’s not “science” as most people understand the term.
Seriously man, don’t just say a bunch of inflammatory stuff and then fail to back it up. That would be shameful.
Ok, well what’s your understanding of the term?
And what’s “most people’s” understanding?
And about that nonsense I was saying. You can’t just gesture vaguely and slurfully like that. You gotta give evidence. Gimme a couple specific examples.
well?
The alternative to a model is to build an exact replica of the universe to study and last I checked that wasn’t possible.
An alternative to a model is to present the empirical evidence itself. By describing the experimental method employed. And then you do the experiment and then you see the thing.
Your assertion is insanely stupid.
I should leave it at that, but I have poor self control. If you don’t make models, how do you propose people be able to make predictions? That is how new science and tech are developed. The invention of the transistor (which all modern tech is based on) came about because a lot of people worked to develop the field of quantum mechanics, which is a model.
If you can’t develop and test a model, then how do you understand why and how a physical phenomenon happens? How do you explain it to other people so they can understand and build off of it.
Not allowing models as science would keep us in a spot where all the scientists are rice snooty British men travelling the colonies to genocide locals and eventually dying of Consumption because Penicillin wasn’t invented because nobody was allowed to develop the model of germ theory.
You should be ashamed of this exceedingly stupid post and getting so defensive when people call you out.
Oh god. We’re ALREADY I THE SIMULATION!
