Does anyone else find........

[meic]

and the science supporters start saying "it is because it is" and using circular arguments to support their case

Hmm, I am not sure you get the point of science.

The point of science is to describe how things are not to justify them being that way.

"It is because it is" is a perfectly valid scientific viewpoint and starting point. Theoretical science follows empirical science NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND, except for some of the lost-the-plot authorities in science.

[Si]

I would slightly modify that in order to say what I think a scientist should be able to say.

Now the Religious person can say that but they have no real life basis for it than something written in a book by a bunch of guys a couple of millennia ago. You could give equal credence to a turtle on the back of four elephants or my daughter's latest fairy tale. There isnt anything substantial to back it up.

I happily accept your alteration (even though I have proven to myself that you don't exist), however I cannot accept your "... no real life basis ..." You say this based only on your selected criteria for judgement - someone else might have very different criteria. For instance, I might say that I've tried to read one of Steve Hawkins' text books and could make neither head nor tail of it....but I have this feeling down deep inside of me that god talks to me though the wonder of his creation. You won't find these to be sensible criteria but someone else will. What gives you the right to make the final judgement on which criteria we should all follow (well, apart from you being god that is)?

[Si]

and the science supporters start saying "it is because it is" and using circular arguments to support their case

Hmm, I am not sure you get the point of science.

The point of science is to describe how things are not to justify them being that way.

"It is because it is" is a perfectly valid scientific viewpoint and starting point. Theoretical science follows empirical science NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND, except for some of the lost-the-plot authorities in science.

I don't think that you get it either - that's because there is no one true definition of what science is. You seem to still be stuck with positivistism and not admitting the disconnect between the physical and social worlds.

[meic]

Does science deal with real life? Until you can define what real life is I don't think you are on very safe ground making such statements.

Why dont you think it is safe ground?

Science is about finding out about real life, if we could define what real life was then we would have finished science and it would be redundant. It is because we can not define real life that we are trying to find out using scientific methods. So I am on rock hard, cast iron ground there.

[Si]

Not really - you admit defining your science based upon real life. You admit that you do not understand real life. Thus in effect you are saying that science is based on something you don't understand - hence it must be on shaky ground.

[meic]

and the science supporters start saying "it is because it is" and using circular arguments to support their case

Hmm, I am not sure you get the point of science.

The point of science is to describe how things are not to justify them being that way.

"It is because it is" is a perfectly valid scientific viewpoint and starting point. Theoretical science follows empirical science NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND, except for some of the lost-the-plot authorities in science.

I don't think that you get it either - that's because there is no one true definition of what science is. You seem to still be stuck with positivistism and not admitting the disconnect between the physical and social worlds.

Well if you want to take any conversation to that level then it is impossible to have any meaningful conversation. For sure many of us disagree about what science means just as Religious folk disagree about the various Gods and there commands.
However I think that a general broad brush definition of science as seeking the truth through observation, experimentation and analysis of results should suffice.
Just as Religions could agree a broad brush belief in a superior life form(s) having dominance over us.

[meic]

Not really - you admit defining your science based upon real life. You admit that you do not understand real life. Thus in effect you are saying that science is based on something you don't understand - hence it must be on shaky ground.

In a word No.

There is plenty that science does understand and it is slowly ploughing as far as it can go.
There have been mistakes, there are mistakes and there will be mistakes but the broad methodology is sound.

Unfortunately a lot of people overestimate how much science does understand and some believe it is complete!!!!

[Si]

There is plenty that it does understand, yes, but that is all relative to something else. Now, I agree whole heartedly that this allows us to then build further on the framework and expand our knowledge, no problems there. But I have to comeback to what the framework is all built on. We still have your working assumptions and we still have no way of defining them. thus our framework continues to be very abstracted.

Well if you want to take any conversation to that level then it is impossible to have any meaningful conversation.

Yep, but if you don't take the conversation to that level what you have is ultimately meaningless...catch 22.
And here in lies the rub. I have spoken about the disconnect between the physical and social....there are three ways you can try to combat this argument:
1/ try to ignore it, pretend it doesn't exist or that you don't understand it. You then fall by the same sword that the religious fall by when trying to argue with the scientist about religion.
2/ Accept it but suggest what you have above - this fails again because in the end frame works are merely just-so stories if you can not provide the foundation.
3/ Attack it in its own terms. This works quite well and also demonstrates the issue with the scientist attempting to comment on religion.

Anyway, much as I do enjoy this discussion, I'm off now until tomorrow!
However,...

However I think that a general broad brush definition of science as seeking the truth through observation, experimentation and analysis of results should suffice.

...to go back to where I started: Why does the religious person need to seek the truth when the being that created the truth has already told them what it is? It's not about what the truth is, but where you are standing to look at it. I,of course, can apply the question equally well to science (as you have been doing): why do I need to recreate all of Einstein's experiments when he's already told me what the truth is?

[meic]

I would slightly modify that in order to say what I think a scientist should be able to say.

Now the Religious person can say that but they have no real life basis for it than something written in a book by a bunch of guys a couple of millennia ago. You could give equal credence to a turtle on the back of four elephants or my daughter's latest fairy tale. There isnt anything substantial to back it up.

I happily accept your alteration (even though I have proven to myself that you don't exist), however I cannot accept your "... no real life basis ..." You say this based only on your selected criteria for judgement - someone else might have very different criteria. For instance, I might say that I've tried to read one of Steve Hawkins' text books and could make neither head nor tail of it....but I have this feeling down deep inside of me that god talks to me though the wonder of his creation. You won't find these to be sensible criteria but someone else will. What gives you the right to make the final judgement on which criteria we should all follow (well, apart from you being god that is)?

I have not made the final judgement on what we should all follow or the criteria.

Well just a personal opinion, but that is outside of my definition of real life and in the area defined as fantasy, did I mention my daughter's fairy tales.

[meic]

3/ Attack it in its own terms. This works quite well and also demonstrates the issue with the scientist attempting to comment on religion.

Now a scientist has every right to comment on religion, in so much as they can point out anomalies, probabilities and the lack of proof.
However once they start to claim that science disproves religion they have clearly crossed the line from science into faith.

I am not sure what you mean about the social and the physical, however if you mean about using scientific methods for social systems then it isnt really that suitable as you can not isolate certain variables to change while leaving others constant.
You need three equations to find three answers and it isnt like that in social situations.

[meic]

why do I need to recreate all of Einstein's experiments when he's already told me what the truth is?

You dont think that is was just accepted as gospel do you?

Not only would they have sought to replicate the results but we have been using the results that he bought to our attention to build on both scientifically and technically. You can witness the effects in Hiroshima, your mobile phone and other places.
However Einstein didnt create these physical phenomena he was just the first to notice and demonstrate something.
Also I think that he liked people to question and try and disprove, he even suggested that he was wrong and suggested an experiment which would disprove him because other wise something really impossible would happen in the experiment.
Eventually they did the experiment and something "really impossible" did happen. Which if one was desperate to prove the existence of God they could claim it exposed his presence after the event.

[Si]

why do I need to recreate all of Einstein's experiments when he's already told me what the truth is?

You dont think that is was just accepted as gospel do you?

Not only would they have sought to replicate the results but we have been using the results that he bought to our attention to build on both scientifically and technically.

The important word here being "they". You have not done the replication, thus you are relying on what other people have told you about the success or not. Sorry to repeat the point, but it is the crux of the discussion: faith vs proof.

[kwackers]

faith vs proof.

Or unprovable vs provable.

I don't understand why because you choose to accept other peoples work (and their peers evaluation of it) that it somehow makes the two comparable.
"Standing on the shoulders of giants" only happens when you don't start from first principles yourself.

I think your entire argument is more about semantics and nit picking than a valid point...

[Si]

I am not sure what you mean about the social and the physical, however if you mean about using scientific methods for social systems then it isnt really that suitable as you can not isolate certain variables to change while leaving others constant.
You need three equations to find three answers and it isnt like that in social situations.

Nope, that's not what I meant (however, it does touch on the discussion: given enough effort science, if it is as you say, ought to be able to understand complex systems like social systems as it's all just atoms and electrical pulses, etc).

What I mean is that the world exists in a physical sense - I'm sure that we agree on this: it probably has various laws that govern it, some that we have an idea about and some we don't yet. But, our 'doing' of science is done in a social world - it cannot be otherwise as we are people that exist in that social world. The physical world cannot do science on itself - it needs us to interpret it and turn it into a language that we can understand, otherwise it is happy to just get on with being. The science cannot be uncoupled from the social and this is where the problems start. Some people are probably able to get closer to the pure physics than others....but most must rely on both the work done by others and upon their own language of interpretation.

[Si]

faith vs proof.

Or unprovable vs provable.

But unless you prove it how do you know that it is provable? And if you haven't proved it but argue that it is correct then what are you basing that argument on?