The problem with science II

How on earth can the sort of science that affects computers have anything to do with religion? See, you aren't getting what I'm saying at all, and maybe that is my own fault but I have no idea how to say it differently. I am NOT talking about the kind of science that designs computers. I see no conflict between it and religion or anything else. It is a scientific MINDSET that is wrongly applied to all life that I'm talking about, NOT SCIENCE AS SUCH. But this is so frustrating I might as well give up.

Yeah, Levin's brother is shown as making a half-sincere attempt to get back to his faith, but it is stated that he doesn't believe, and the paragraph explains why, so his attempt is a failure -- if it was sincere at all. Since he's dying I think it's possible there was some sincerity in it, born of desperation, but the story goes on to show him saying he did it just to please his sister-in-law.I was highlighting Tolstoy's observation about how science had led to Nikolay's loss of faith, which is in fact the biggest reason for the overall loss of faith in the West since science got so big. Levin himself also does not believe, apparently for the same reason.What would be the point of anyone's nevertheless finding a way back to some sort of faith, the part you decided to bold? Tolstoy himself found some kind of faith at the end of his life but it was a liberalized truncated faith in who-knows-what, the usual conglomeration of sayings and ideas about Christ with a refusal to accept the supernatural and all the other stuff science somehow took away from so many -- the kind of "faith" one sees a lot of here at evc. Hardly a faith at all.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, Robin, that is a big part of the problem. It is very hard to abstract it for some reason and I think I'm about to give up saying anything more about it since what I'm saying is getting across such a big nothing to most here.

I agree about the satire. He's pretty hard on Madame Stahl. But the Pietists aren't "organized religion," more of a revival of sorts at the time. By contrast he seems to me to be positive toward the Russian Orthodox church and its rituals, though I wasn't sure what to make of this priest who treats Levin, a complete unbeliever, as a believer -- just for the sake of his high society wedding?Anyway, Robin, I suppose this is off topic unless you can tie it into the science/two cultures theme. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If I understand your position, it is that there are some areas of our universe that science shouldn't poke into. But to most science people, anything in the natural universe is a worthy object for scientific study. I think the reason your point isn't getting across is because you're not able to explain why computers are okay for science but evolution isn't.The position of the science people is that while nothing is off-limits as objects of study, there *are* some types of questions that science shouldn't try to answer. Examples of such questions are "Why are we here?" or "What is the meaning of life?". But science believes that questions like "How does this work?" or "How did this happen?" are valid questions to ask about anything.--Percy

"Shouldn't poke into" because they make a reductionistic falsified trivialized mess of it, not that I have anything IN PRINCIPLE against poking into any of it. They make a mess of it and then they take the mess for the reality and that's because the methods of science are not suited to the investigation, but they are so used to them they see no problem. Or something like that.I'm sorry, I tend to become inarticulate on this subject. I'm astonished that nobody knows what I'm talking about since it is old and familiar to me -- although really I suppose I should be more astonished that I'm astonished given the topic. I've more or less lost interest at this point, and am simply trying to keep up with some of the misunderstandings. Maybe I'll get a second wind and have more to say later.I am sure there are plenty of people outside science and outside evc who do know what I'm talking about, of course, if only because of Snow's book and the acknowledged ongoing controversy about these two cultures he discusses, and even because of Tolstoy's novel, which shows that the problem was recognized even in Russia in his time.About computers, that's the physical world, where science is in its element. The basic area science can't deal with is the mind or soul, human experience, psychology and religion included. I thought I was pretty clear about this, although explaining WHY science can't deal with it is difficult. I seem to run up against a problem of sheer sensibility at this point. Either people get it or they don't.{edit: Robin's example, from a thread some weeks ago, of being told that a man's being attracted to a woman is "really" about his unconscious assessment of her genetic fitness for breeding, is a particularly laughable case in point, but those who proposed the idea weren't laughing and apparently have no ability to grasp why it's laughable.}This has nothing to do with computers. All physical reality science deals with just fine. Biology without Darwin it deals with just fine too. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, Darwin is dead, has been for a while, so let's leave Darwin aside. So you have no objection to science studying biology?--Percy

If what you're saying is that science shouldn't even bother because they're bound to get it wrong, then that's only true for one of two reasons:1) The scientific metholodgy can't grapple with these subjects. You'd have to show the weakness of the methodology for that to be true. You haven't been doing that -- just calling the rest of us idiots for not seeing the obvious truth of your point.2) The scientific results are different from what you know is right. Of course, it's much more likely that you're wrong and science is right, so we can basically reject this alternative. You're on the record, repeatedly, for saying that the purpose of heterosexual activity is reproduction. Now you think it's "laughable" to assert that men are attracted to women because they want to reproduce with them? Should we just start calling you "Flip-flop Faith"? You're not a biologist; in fact you don't really have any familiarity with the subject, so it's not surprising that you would say this. It's completely wrong, of course.

I am NOT "on the record" for saying that "the purpose of heterosexual activity is reproduction." QUOTE ME!! Stop making stuff up. I have corrected that idiotic misreading half a dozen times already.I've admitted I haven't proved my point. I've even said it's a matter of sensibility. I've said it's something people outside this weird place would recognize however. Sorry, that's the way it is. If you want to claim victory for my lack of "evidence" go ahead. Nothing new there. Nobody here really cares a fig for the truth anyway, or for why somebody from another POV sees things difrerently. All you want to do is put down the creo however you can manage it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Of course not. The question seems either silly or baiting. But I'll try to assume it's not. Anyway the answer is no.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Why don't we just try to focus on the topic.--Percy

You mean "people who aren't familiar with science."Doesn't that tell you something? Your average person is pretty scientifically ignorant. If what you're saying is that people who don't know that much about science find your views totally reasonable, doesn't that tell you something about those views? What kind of views, in your opinion, are most typically found among the ignorant? My answer would be: wrong ones. You think I don't understand why you hold the views you do? Nothing could be further from the truth. What's so hard to understand about ignorance?

So it's not the application of the scientific method to biology that you object to, but the findings?--Percy

Another area might be the idea that the mind is just another word for brain, a view which must be taken if one is a philosophical materialist (everything is physical). New (relatively new)medicine to control "chemical imbalances" that cause such diseases as schizophrenia suggest the notion of materialism.One might use the word "scientism" rather than science: man is a thing. He thinks he's a being, but that's just man being uppity. There's no such thing as a being. There are only things. Things can be studied scientifically. Beings cannot.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

It's the misapplication of whatever method is involved, and you were just baiting as I thought, trying to find some way to put it to trip me up. I've already said a great deal on this forum about my convictions on this point and you probably know what they are. This thread is supposed to be about the two cultures, not science as such. There's a great deal about how the terms "scientific method" and "findings" are used that is questionable.