On 5 Maj, 18:36, Niels <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Monday 05 May 2008 17:30, Tue Sorensen wrote:
> >> > Niels wrote:
> >> 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?
Okay, I see there's yet another crucial aspect of science that
completely eludes you. And it's *still* the subjectivity/objectivity
problem. If you, as an individual, build a spaceship that works, you
can claim that you have done the same as a man who builds a row-boat
that works. You have used your own personal ingenuity. THAT'S NOT
SCIENCE. Science is a world view that a community of interacting
scientists have agreed on. Something can only be called science when
it has been accepted as such by the scientific community. Science is a
*cultural phenomenon* that represents rational agreement about natural
inquiry and the method and results of such inquiry. A scientist
removed from his scientific community is strictly speaking no longer a
scientist. Science is an institution that goes definitively beyond the
subjective person. It's a collective activity. If no one is around to
acknowledge that what you do is science, then it's not. You can choose
to call it that, just as you can choose to call it Fred. But the
cultural phenomenon of science is a team-effort and can never be
anything but.
What you call science (anything technological or mechanical that
works) can vary from a row-boat to a spaceship, but you forget that in
order to make that technological leap, an entire civilization that
manufactures mass-produced electronics and many other thing is
required. Hence, there comes a level when individual ingenuity must be
replaced by the technological fruits of a larger culture, and it is
*only* under those circumstances that advanced technology becomes
possible. Only by having many people involved in researching checks
and balances can anything be said to approach objective truth; one
true reality that all scientists can agree about and which can become
the common world view that further scientific activity is based on.
This can never be the case for some isolated ship-builder's subjective
ideas about how things work. He can never know if he *really* knows
how things work, of if he just lives in a solipsistic world of his own
mental invention.
What this comes down to is that I have just exposed a horribly
embarrassing fact about you, which in retrospect makes all kinds of
sense: When you use the word "science", what you actually mean is
"mechanics".
> > 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?
Scientific practice is not a simple as you make it out to be.
Observations and test results must still take place according to
accepted rules and methods in order to be accepted by a scientific
peer community. Science is what scientists accept as science, and this
changes more or less subtly over time. I'm amazed that you are not
long since convinced of the obvious truth of this.
I will eventually write about what I will suggest. Read it when it
gets published. I'll get you a free copy.
> > 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!
If you understand the universe as science describes it, you must
accept that everything is in a state of continuous change! Any
contrary notion is obviously absurd! Understanding change will help
you to a better understanding of a great many experimental situations
and scientific principles. Science describes a universe in motion.
Reject constant motion, and you reject science itself. Sure, some
experiments can work without taking constant change into account, but
those are tiny, limited and frozen pictures of some limited situation.
If you desire greater understanding, and you should, then change must
become part of the equation. It is aggressive ignorance to deny this.
> > 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?
Ultimately, there is only one situation: the universe. You can of
course choose to disregard parts of it for some particular purpose,
but the proper scientific attitude is holistic.
> > 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.
Please do.
- Tue
|
