On Monday 05 May 2008 17:30, Tue Sorensen wrote:
[snip]
>> >> > I made the remark because scientists, when required to explain
>> >> > exactly what science is, tend to defer to philosophers (like
Popper,
>> >> > or Kuhn).
>>
>> >> That's because it's a philosophical question.
>>
>> > If by "philosophical question" you mean something that people don't
>> > agree on, then yes. As you stated above, philosophy is just so much
>> > chatter on things some people don't agree on.
>>
>> Most "what is..." and "why is..." questions are philosophical
questions,
>> as opposed to hardcore science's "how much". There's no distinct line
in
>> the sand, but talking about science instead of doing it is certainly on
>> the wrong side of said line.
>
> Hogwash! To have a scientific world view is to have a scientific life
> style, regardless of whether you're engaged in specific experimental
> investigation. Theoretical science, whether directly useful or wildly
> speculative, is precisely as important as applied science - the main
> thing is to have both going on at the same time. There isn't either
> without the other.
>
Philosophy of science isn't theoretical science.
>> Let's say you're studying some subject X, and that you're good at it
and
>> producing good, usefull practical results. I can then easily invent any
>> number of bogus "philosophical" questions, and then claim that you're
>> ignorant and don't have a clear idea of the fundamental nature of X.
But
>> you were doing great before I came along, and my questions don't change
>> the usefullness of your work. My silly questions are superfluous and
>> should be dismissed. Science is doing just fine without philosophy of
>> science.
>
> I'm sorry but I don't think that's a scientific attitude. Sure, if the
> questions are *bogus*, but they may not be. Philosophy of science
> concerns itself, among other things, with the nature of the scientific
> method, and that's rather important.
If my science (X) has build a spaceship that works, how are your inquires
into the nature of the scientific method going to affect that fact? They
aren't. Could you give an example of this "important" of which you speak?
> The reason it's possible for
> scientists to do science is that there prevails a certain paradigm as
> to what the scientific method is, and the vast majority of practising
> scientists accept this paradigm. Hence they largely agree on what
> comprises good science. But paradigms, like everything else in the
> universe, change.
If by paradigm you mean "the results fit the observations, let's continue
this line of investigation", then yes. What change would you suggest?
> Personally, I believe that it's part and parcel of a
> scientific attitude to accept that everything changes all the time
> (except possibly certain physical laws and constants), even if some
> things only do so very or even imperceptibly slowly. Anybody who does
> not accept and even embrace such a principle of constant change cannot
> be said to have understood the scientific world view in full.
>
Why not? "Everything changes" is philosophy, not science. Find me a 12th
century monk who chants "Everything changes" and I'll show you a guy who
can't build a spaceship!
> And another thing. A scientific world view must encompass everything.
> Unless you *know* them to be without merit, you can't just dismiss
> pertinent claims and perspectives that annoy you for some reason.
"Without merit" means "doesn't affect this particular situation", right?
> That's like picking an opinion and stubbornly sticking with it without
> ever trying to increase your level of enlightenment so that your
> considered judgment can constantly evolve.
I'll remember you said that.
>> > I started by asserting the truth, and then, when people foolishly
>> > objected, I was forced to start arguing for it. :-)
>>
>> oh I'm sorry, but this is Abuse.
>
> No it isn't!
>
Can be.
> Bad research is inexcusable indeed. But research has to stop at some
> point. Many would say that Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy
> contains a good deal too much research and detail.
>
I'll readily admit that I haven't read it yet, but it sounds good.
//Niels
|
