The Value of Science
EDIT (part I): Some people have mistaken this entry to be pro-science anti-spirituality. It's not. Other people have mistaken this entry to be pro-spirituality anti-science. It's not. It's simply about the limitations of science. See the bottom of this entry for more on that...
* * * * * * *
While the results are too early to say this for sure, a dismally large percentage of people answering the poll so far have voted that "Given its powerful method, science is the only reliable, worthy system to believe in - it describes everything that's worthwhile or significant, and anything that can't be described by it (including spirituality) is silly superstition."
While I'll accept this as valid feelings on the matter (I understand and respect that people may not trust or value things that science can't describe), it is completely invalid as a factual statement.
Firstly, it's saying that ANYTHING that is NOT describable by science is silly. Morality, for instance, cannot be described by science - is justice silly, worthless, insignificant, superstitious, irrelevant? Certainly not. So obviously, things not described by science CAN be significant and worthy of address.
Secondly, it's saying that EVERYTHING in the realm of science is worthwhile or significant (as compared to those things outside the realm of science). Is studying the dietary habits of an earthworm more worthy, more significant than studying justice? Although the answer depends on the situation and context, I'm sure many would argue that being able to understand and apply the concept of justice is more important in more meaningful ways than being able to describe the dietary habits of worms. So in many ways, science is NOT necessarily more worthwhile or significant than non-scientific subjects.
Thirdly, it's saying that science is the ONLY reliable, worthy system. There are a number of problems with this assertion that make it incorrect. We've already established in our first point that important subjects exist outside of science, which necessitate the existence of other systems to apply to that which science cannot describe. This system is called philosophy (which is what science evolved historically from), which uses logic and reason in critical attempts to come to meaningful conclusions, and is in fact a broader subject than science, as it discusses science itself as well as all that science cannot discuss. Because they essentially use the same powerful system, the tools of philosophy are arguably on par with that of science, even though it does not have the same empirical data to support it.
If science were the only reliable, worthy system, it would be capable of applying to all things, and would not require another system such as philosophy to describe that which it cannot discuss. Furthermore, science was derived from philosophy, which came first and laid the groundwork for the powerful method that science uses, and so it can be argued that philosophy is an equally worthy system.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
It's a mistake to seriously vouch for a belief that uses words like "always," and "never," and "every." I did it on purpose, but hoped more people would notice and vote for the much more reasonable alternative "Science" option. That being said, it's definitely possible to argue a position for science and against spirituality, but certainly not in these extreme terms.
* * * * * * *
EDIT (part II): I have received a particular counter-argument from a small number of people. They assert that science CAN and DOES apply to everything, including the things I've said it can't. For instance, a good example among many similar disciplines is evolutionary psychology/biology, which attempts to explain the origins and development of (including non-scientific) phenomenon, such as art, politics, and morality. Therefore, according to them, science can apply to everything, including subjective and immaterial things such as art and morality.
While this may seem convincing at first, it has at least two very serious problems - firstly, it assumes that studying something about a non-scientific subject is the same as studying the non-scientific subject itself. It is not. Studying how and why art may have developed in humans compared to other animals is NOT the same as studying art as a concept. Studying how and why people may have evolved a sense of morality is NOT the same as studying the concepts of morality itself.
Secondly, by its very definition, science IS FINITE and has strict limitations. I'm not talking about a lay-person's definition of science, which can be as broad as "our understanding of the world," but how it is defined IN SCIENCE, by scientists using it.
From Wikipedia: "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry MUST be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses." Furthermore, "a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is scientific ONLY if it is falsifiable."
From [link] : "Clearly, the scientific method is a powerful tool, but it does have its limitations. These limitations are based on the fact that a hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable and that experiments and observations be repeatable. This places certain topics beyond the reach of the scientific method." For example, "Science cannot prove or refute the existence of God or any other supernatural entity." Explained here: "Proponents of intelligent design try to pass this concept off as a scientific theory to make it more palatable to developers of public school curriculums. But intelligent design is not science because the existence of a divine being cannot be tested with an experiment." Furthermore, "Science is also incapable of making value judgments."
This demonstrates my next point. Science is a tool - it can be used to help us make moral judgements (for instance, forensic sciences in criminal cases) - upon finding and analysing the physical, objective data, humans can then try to attempt to decide if a person's actions were good or bad, fair or unfair, right or wrong. Science is not what is making the judgement call here! Science can tell us only who died, how he died/what he died from, when he died, and where he died. Science can tell us he died from a gunshot wound, fired at this angle from this origin point. Science can tell us that this person was responsible for firing that shot. However, science can NOT tell us the motive of this person for shooting the victim, or whether the killing was just or unjust - it can't tell the difference between two soldiers in a war, or a betrayal, or a random killing, or political assassination, or an assisted suicide, or an accident. It needs humans to make the judgement call for it, based on the information it provided.
Using science to help support an idea does not make the idea scientific unless the idea itself undergoes the scientific method. Some scientific discoveries can be used to support the idea that there may have been a Great Flood, for instance, but cannot show that it was an act of a supernatural omnipotent God. Scientific observations and conclusions can be used to liberate or condemn the accused in court, but that doesn't make the trial (or justice or morality) "scientific."
Similarly, it can be fairly said to exist the "art of science" or the "morality of science." This does not make art or morality scientific. (see my first point above) Just as scientifically studying the effects or development of morality is not the same as studying morality, studying the morality of science isn't the same as studying science itself. Someone pondering the rightness or wrongness of science and its products is very different from a scientist conducting research - they are NOT the same things!
As a sidenote, it has also been argued that science can make moral judgements on an issue in the sense that it provides information on the issue that differentiates it as natural or unnatural. This is true - science does allow us to differentiate between something that is natural or unnatural. Let us define "unnatural" as existing only when created by a living thing.
A common invalid argument for things such as homosexuality, pedophilia, and bestiality is that it's unnatural, therefore it's absolutely wrong. This is obviously incorrect for making such a conclusion (whether it is or isn't unnatural, or whether it is or isn't wrong is not the issue here). By the same logic, all unnatural things must be wrong, simply for being unnatural. Recall that anything unnatural is something that exists because something created it. Therefore, all technology, machines, and computers is unnatural (and therefore utterly morally wrong). Bird's nests are unnatural, and beaver dams, and clothing.
If you truly are asserting that science can make moral judgements because it can discern between natural and unnatural, and that furthermore unnatural things are morally wrong, what are you doing using a computer? Reading a book? Wearing clothes? Using a pencil, or fork?
Art Status
Requests - Never
Trades - Unlikely
Collaborations - Unlikely
Gifts
Commissions - OPEN (note me)
- 8/8 slots are full
- Terrafirma: Blood elf and Kurken - 33% (advance paid)
- Cuitcell: Portal between worlds - 0% (advance not yet paid)
- ~queenkalani: Wolf pack lineart - 5% (advance not yet paid)
- ~Greyback04: Two wolves in forest - 0% (advance not yet paid)
- jthunder: lovers in forest - 0% (advance not yet paid)
- lincard: vanguard attack - 0% (advance not yet paid)
- Rashi: Rashi party! - 2% (advance paid)
- AJ: world map - 5% (advance not yet paid)
Char Portrait Commissions - OPEN
Cheap Specials!
ROUGH SKETCHES - $8 (samples)
VECTOR LINEART - $10-60 (samples)
PORTRAITS/BUSTS - $30-85 (samples)
GRAPHITE ACEOS - $25-50 (samples)
VECTORIZE YOUR WORK! - $10-25 (samples)
MORPH/ANIMATE YOUR PICTURES! - $5-10 (samples)
Commission Information
Christmas Wishlist etc. 2009 
![[link]](http://www.deviantart.com/users/outgoing?http://www.oceansbridge.com/paintings/artists/recently-added/hgy/bihari-sandor/big/Elder_Man_Sitting_in_an_Arm_chair.jpg){kind=link}
![[link]](http://www.deviantart.com/users/outgoing?http://upload.ecvv.com/upload/Product/200801/2007612153336766247_old_masters_portrait_oil_painting_on_canvas.jpg){kind=link}
![[link]](http://www.deviantart.com/users/outgoing?http://upload.ecvv.com/upload/Product/200801/200766163145754498_old_masters_portrait_oil_painting_on_canvas.jpg){kind=link}