A healthy skepticism: A philosophical argument to question science, assuming such a thing as science exists
Certainty
People seem to be so sure of things. If there's one goal I have in life, it's to be less sure. Words and phrases float around like: "I read a study which proved conclusively that..." If they were entirely honest, the phrases would be "I have a mental impression purporting to be a memory of an impression that I read a study, purporting to have proven conclusively that..."
The limits of the senses
The world is (apparently) made up of impressions, and suppositions, or impressions of suppositions. Some suppositions are treated as facts, others are indeed treated as suppositions, and others I ignore or avoid. What a funny old world where we presume our perceptions to be facts, though we know our senses are limited, assuming we even have senses. Stranger still is that I can believe my perceptions of reports of others' perceptions.
Scientific skepticism, and skepticism of science
A scientific report of an experiment, being entirely honest, would have to include phrases like "I am having an impression of a memory that some seconds ago I added HCl to form a weak dilution." That would be laborious to write, and to read, but (presumably) obviously much closer to the truth. An even more honest report would include statements such as "I am having an impression of a memory that some minutes ago the dilution turned green. This impression does not align with my mental impression of the hypothesis, and so, in my impression of the memory of the tabulated data, I recall that I omitted that result."
A belief in science is the belief that you can read the reports of (presumably human, and therefore presumably biased) observers about their impressions of memories of their perceptions, resulting in an enhanced understanding of reality - and of course, the assumption that every one of these aforementioned entities even exists. For some reason, the idea exists that this method is more objective and more real than my own impressions of what exists. Now, that's quite a remarkable claim. My own perceptions are questionable at best, so to ask me to accept on faith that I can accurately determine reality by examining the mental impression of a memory, of me perceiving a document which purports to report the impressions of memories of perceptions of others, and their interpretations about these impressions... seems to be much like building a house of cards on a foundation of quicksand while standing in a swamp.
That is, presuming anyone was asking me to do that in the first place. Maybe they weren't.
About me
My name is Kurt Robinson. I grew up in Australia, but now I live in Guadalajara, Jalisco. I write interesting things about voluntaryism, futurism, science fiction, travelling Latin America, and psychedelics. Remember to press follow so you can stay up to date with all the cool shit I post, and follow our podcast where we talk about crazy ideas for open-minded people, here: @paradise-paradox, and like us on Facebook here - The Paradise Paradox
Some other cool posts
Here are some other posts of mine to check out:
Freedom trumps fear: Everything you do is an act of liberty
Automation: An age of unseen prosperity
Economics lessons from an alien 👽 A true science fiction story
Psychedelic science fiction story - "Zero Dimension"
The fools are full of certainties, and the wise full of doubts.
As for me, I'm full of hot chocolate
True true!
There is science and then there is hard-science. There are some that are based on a fundamental set of theories that should be inter-related and demand an extremely precise set of measurements, this is the case in much of physics.
Then there are softer sciences like health sciences, the evidence required there just needs to be "close enough", 95% confidence interval; there is also no requirement that theories share a connected set of assumptions. Here is where there is some ground for pseudo-science.
That's probably all true.
The point in the post, which perhaps I failed to make, is that the only way I can know the results or conclusions of those experiments is by using my own senses to look at the study, assume that they are giving me an accurate representation of reality, and that the report is a factual account of the experiment, and that the senses of the people who created the report were giving them an accurate representation of reality... if any of these links in the chain do not function, then the information that I receive is useless, or even misleading. Presumably, there is no way to confirm the information directly - I can only use my senses.
@kyriacos brought up this point:
The point is that, I can see the effects of science, and therefore I should accept that science works. The reason this argument fails is that, I have no way of confirming that I am holding a camera, using a computer, or electricity, except by using my senses. I have to assume that my senses are giving an accurate representation of reality. Then I have to assume that all of these things are indeed the results of science - which is something I can't even confirm with my untrustworthy senses - I have to rely on second-hand accounts, assume that the information is being reported to me correctly, and that my senses are giving me an accurate representation of what is being reported, and so on.
I have a mental impression from my memory that indicates I make the assumption continually that my senses accurately report reality, but I can't tell you with confidence that it's true, as I only have this mental impression of a memory to tell me so.
Of course, on some level we might say this is a kind of intellectual masturbation. And maybe it is; maybe it's just for fun. We all have to make some assumptions about the world we're living in - that's just the way The Game is played. The thing is, (my mental impressions tell me that) many will make the argument that science is to be trusted over your own experience, because of the probability of failure of the senses. To take that to its logical extreme means we cannot trust science, and for the same reasons.
Yep. I agree with the point, I was speaking more of the mechanics of how the point manifests. You can't make a claim that relativity doesn't work whilst using a GPS, because relativity is why the GPS works.
However, there are a bunch of sciences that are not hard sciences, and given all the biases that go on, they are more likely to be false than true.
Hard vs soft.
I'm pretty sure that I am sure..... I think. :)
Great piece, I like the science inclusion. I have said for awhile as much as I love science it is approached with too many preconceived results these days. Not really true science.
Yes, though I have to wonder how much it's always been like that. It always depends who is paying, and their intentions, to some extent.
True, I was going to respond about "true" scientists that were discovered right over time. However, it could really be the same here, several decades later work hushed and dismissed from this era comes to light as correct. We shall see.
@churdtzu
You know, that camera you are holding? that's science
The computer you are using, sattelite, electricity to send the post. that's science too.
oh and the blockchain that makes you shekels..that's science too.
but hey. what do i know. Be sceptic about it. The money made from these dubious things are not real. wire them to me.
It is not. Understanding it, inventing it, optimizing it is science. The camera itself is not science. It is the result and application of the scientific process.
Same goes for the other examples you mentioned.
It takes a genius to invent the blockchain. Any village idiot can operate it. That doesn't make it "science".