On Monday 05 May 2008 19:48, Tue Sorensen wrote:
> 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.
Oh, I thought you had convinced me that the concept of science includes
all
technology. My mistake, I'll go back to thinking that science is the
method
by which we examine the world.
> 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.
>
If I'm all alone I can't use critical thinking to examine my world,
achieve
technological progress and change my environment?
> 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;
Objective truth? Aren't we talking about science? You know, best guesses
and
such? Are you sure you're not a philosopher?
> one
> true reality that all scientists can agree about and which can become
> the common world view that further scientific activity is based on.
We allready have a true reality, science is about describing it.
> 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.
Science isn't looking for "how things *really* work". That's religion.
> 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".
>
Just the opposite in fact. But in what we currently call science fiction,
technology is often all we have, and so that's what we're talking about.
You know that I've often said that such and such wasn't really SF because
it's all tech and no science, to which you've replied that the tech is
supposed to symbolize science.
[snip]
>> > 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.
>
Or you could say that the universe consists of things that are blue and
things that aren't blue. That's obviously true, but that alone doesn't
make
it a usefull notion. If you think that viewing the universe as being in a
state of continuous change helps scientific progress, please show us
explicitly how -- or withdraw your claim.
Your problems with limited situations shows that you don't get how science
works. Limited situations are what we strive for! We love being able to
isolate some part of a complex system!
At the end of the day, science is empirical and quantitative. At its most
extreme it isn't about understanding the universe, it's about calculating
it. Whether you like that fact or not doesn't matter.
[snip rest]
//Niels
|
