Scientists Makes Science!

[sigurdV]

Sometimes theres is a simple answer to a tricky question...See Above!

 

That doesnt stop us from elucidating the answer, again and again, and all over again since we seem to have missed something in first apprehension of a seemingly "simple" but nevertheless correct answer.

 

I,however, will stop now unless you do something about it.

[CraigD]

Sometimes theres is a simple answer to a tricky question...See Above!

I see the title "Scientists make science" above.

 

What is the question :QuestionM

[Doctordick]

Hi Craig,

 

What is the question :QuestionM

I think he is trying to say that there is no question: i.e., philosophically speaking, scientists have no one to answer to as their beliefs themselves stand in their defence. That is, no acceptable philosophical arguments have ever brought their beliefs into question.

 

Note that "acceptable" is the relevant word there!

 

To this day religionists still feel the same way.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Rade]

Given that science is defined as "to know" from the Latin scire, and knowledge is "made" via electrochemical processes within human consciousness (well, unless you believe in the Genesis story that it is within the fruit of a tree) indeed it is a truth statement that scientists (those humans that claim to have knowledge of x) make science (the mental process of knowing x). Those humans that have intuition or belief of x, are no type of scientist, but must be classified with the mystics.

[sigurdV]

I did have in mind something like the explications given by the participators, but perhaps, as craigs answer seems to imply, my answer missed the point?

 

1 What makes science science, is scientists making science. (Was my intended statement.)

2 What makes science, is scientists making science. (But perhaps this is what actually was said and understood? It is most of the time true, but not at all what I meant to say.)

 

I was careless in formulating the topic, it should have read: Scientists make science science. Comparing Science and Philosophy made me think the shorter form funny, but since my intention was to examine the forum topic i would correct if I knew how.

 

Particles in Physics cannot be precisely described at the same time as to location and speed ,and something similar is the case with sentences. In giving an answer obviously true

one must accept lack of other qualities. But by raising simple questions and giving minimal but true answers one hopes to eventually end in real understanding of the answer to the original question..

 

So why not continue the investigation by asking: What makes Scientists Scientists?

[Kriminal99]

I'll agree that scientists make science science, if only because words and phrases like science, scientific method, etc have become more buzzwords than philosophically sound paradigms.

 

Without a concrete formulation of doubt like one that doctor dick has tried to outline scientists at worst can not be guaranteed to be more than just slightly less idiotic idiots. Though they relate their superior understanding to some level of self-skepticism and will to validate beliefs "empirically" over the average person, they can only describe this attribute by pointing to someone that seemingly does it less than them... as evidenced by a falsifiable belief.

 

There are people who have an innate understanding of what this skepticism truly is and how it should be applied, those people with profound deductive reasoning skills, who are then challenged by "scientists" projecting their insecurities regarding accidentally making falsifiable claims.

 

Then these "scientists" go on to violate the true principals of skepticism by ignoring potential sources of sampling bias in their experiments, favoring social conventions over potential sources of knowledge, and making poorly reasoned conclusions from experimental data...

[sigurdV]

Hi there opponents, Thank you for commenting!

 

This might speed up things. Now that "Scientific Method" is mentioned I assume that we agree that Scientists using the Scientific Method makes Science Science.

 

Next then, is to ask: What is the Scientific Method?

 

I expect there to be some cathegories:

 

1 Traditional descriptions dating from medieval times.

2 Standard modern thinking.

3 Other thinking... Kriminal99 mentioned doctor dick?

[Doctordick]

... Kriminal99 mentioned doctor dick?

Yeah, I apparently have a rather different view on what science is all about. If you want to discuss anything with me, I suggest you read the OP of my thread “Defining the nature of rational discussion!”. Most people have difficulty comprehending what I am talking about there and if you can't see the essence of that post, we would probably be wasting our time. :(

 

Have fun -- Dick

[sigurdV]

Hi Dick! Ive done some first reading on your text:

 

We both think of Deduction and Induction as the tools in applying the Scientific method on the object level. The Devil might hide in the details though:)

 

I think the tools are intertwined ideal objects: No scientific thought or action being purely deductive or ditto inductive!

 

Your concept of "Logical Thinking" sounds to me like the process of analysing proof, while "Squirrell Thinking" seems to be

the inductive process of harvesting a set of facts by experience and experiment.

[Doctordick]

Your concept of "Logical Thinking" sounds to me like the process of analysing proof, while "Squirrel Thinking" seems to be the inductive process of harvesting a set of facts by experience and experiment.

Close but not exactly the way I would put it. It is possible you are missing the point. The significant difference is "logical thinking" may be checked in intimate detail for errors whereas "squirrel thinking" can not, thus it can never be guaranteed to be without error. On the other hand, "logical thinking" cannot handle more then a very small basis of facts whereas "squirrel thinking" can work simultaneously with a massive volume of facts available to us. (So massive that explicitly expressing the basis is beyond our abilities.) I balk at your use of the term "inductive" as there is a defined "inductive" procedure in formal logic which can be seen as exact logic and thus use of the term can lead to some confusion.

 

What most people seem to miss is the fact that, when I refer to "logical thought" I mean a detailed procedure defined in what is commonly taught as "logic". Qfwfq and others have even gone so far as to suggest that squirrels use logic which clearly indicates they either didn't read what I wrote or were intentionally only interested in confusing the underlying issues. Over the long haul, I have come to presume the latter.

 

The only reason I created that post was to differentiate between the two so I could include the second in my concept of “rational thought”. Without the second, “logical thought” is essentially not rational as it is based upon a foundation created via “squirrel conclusions”. That is why I “defined” rational conclusions as conclusions which do not generate doubts as to their correctness. Another step which the trolls took great trouble to deride.

 

If you find what I just said to be reasonable, I will presume we understand one another.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Rade]

I “defined” rational conclusions as conclusions which do not generate doubts as to their correctness

So, DD, for you, there is no rational conclusion that does not generate "rational doubt", correct ? If so, then the last sentence in your last post above this one is not a rational conclusion, correct ?

[sigurdV]

Well Dick...

 

We may differ in the details but that can wait. I prefere if you go on:)

[Doctordick]

Well Dick...

 

We may differ in the details but that can wait. I prefere if you go on:)

Go on with what? If you remember my original post on this thread,

 

Yeah, I apparently have a rather different view on what science is all about. If you want to discuss anything with me, I suggest you read ...

I had made no proposition to discuss anything. However, I did say,"I apparently have a rather different view on what science is all about". If that is what you want to discuss, you ought to take a look at Bertram Russell's introduction to a publication by Ludwig Wittgenstein. Or you could just read my OP on Exactly What Is Tractatus?, which has been locked because my OP was “off subject”.

As far as I am concerned, the whole thing has to do with “what is science”. From my perspective; science, religion, philosophy, ..., it's all the same. Everyone wants to explain what they think is true. Certainly explanations would exist in a perfect language as proposed by Wittgenstein.

 

The very first step in making any attempt to explain anything is, as far as I am concerned, to comprehend exactly what "an explanation" is. In particular, what are the universal constraints imposed by a decent definition of that concept. Isn't that what "definition" is all about? If you don't have a clear comprehension of what the definition says, you are just blowing smoke.

 

I have solved the problem of laying out some universal constraints implied by that definition and my solution leads to some rather astounding conclusions. But few people are even willing to discuss the issue. All but a very few insist on discussing "counter examples" without even considering defining what they are talking about.

 

Well, I would enjoy talking about that with some intelligent people. If you are interested, tell me what your reaction to that particular OP is.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Qfwfq]

I balk at your use of the term "inductive" as there is a defined "inductive" procedure in formal logic which can be seen as exact logic and thus use of the term can lead to some confusion.

You're the one that's complaining about the use of words with ambiguous semantics, as usual! That is a case usually easy to discern by context and I found no problem with it.

 

Qfwfq and others have even gone so far as to suggest that squirrels use logic...

I said nothing of the sort. You should avoid mentioning people's names to make false attributions.

 

...which has been locked because my OP was “off subject”.

No Dick, your OP was the only post in that thread that at least mentioned the topic, in the first few lines, prior to me pointing out the the whole thread was off its own topic. In any case, that thread had nothing but pointless bickering in it.

 

So, what's the point of this thread meant to be?

[Rade]

Qfwfq....more likely DD refers to me concerning possibility of logic use in brain of squirrels, since I reported previously that what is good enough for ravens, is good enough for squirrels as far as I am concerned:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/29/theobserversuknewspages.uknews1

 

Of course, such research on ravens is not defined as "science" in DD philosophy, so he will have no use for such a nonsense report in a peer reviewed journal.

[Qfwfq]

...more likely DD refers to me concerning possibility of logic use in brain of squirrels, since I reported previously that what is good enough for ravens, is good enough for squirrels as far as I am concerned:

lol so you are the true culprit are you?

 

Actually I would be cautious with the above type of reasoning, ravens and squirrels have totally different necessities, so there's no guarantee of them having comparable skills and personally I've no idea how wily a squirrel can be. However that article is one of many examples of research into how clever some animals can be, as well as how much they are able to learn. Sometimes results are very surprising indeed. A documentary I once saw told about a naturalist who wanted to observe a bird in the wild, it was dwelling quite near a disused hunter's shack so he hoped to conceal himself in it, to avoid affecting the bird's behaviour. The bird could quite obviously remember hunters being a threat and was hence very wary whenever there was somebody in it. I can't remember exactly how many other lads he had to ask to enter the shack with him and then exit shortly after, but it was like six or seven, before the bird got its counting wrong and believed there was nobody left in there. I think the guy even had them walking in tight cluster, to foil the critter's counting prowess.

 

In any case, let's avoid straying too far off topic.

[Doctordick]

Qfwfq and others have even gone so far as to suggest that squirrels use logic...

I said nothing of the sort. You should avoid mentioning people's names to make false attributions.

 

Even a squirrel can have it's reasons, although it couldn't afford the time to step through them during it's acrobatics.

So all a squirrel needs is a little more time “to step through them during it's acrobatics”. If that isn't intended to imply a logical process, I don't know what it was there for.

 

No Dick, your OP was the only post in that thread that at least mentioned the topic, in the first few lines, prior to me pointing out the the whole thread was off its own topic. In any case, that thread had nothing but pointless bickering in it.

Well, why didn't you just delete the “pointless bickering” then? I think you like it to be there because it tends to bury what I am saying in garbage.

 

So, what's the point of this thread meant to be?

Trying to clarify the issue that the notation [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n,t)[/math] can represent any circumstance conceivable, including representing a “complex” in Wittgenstein's “perfect language”. Of course the whole deal is clearly completely over your head or at least that is what you want to pretend.

 

The only thing you leave me wondering about is: how you could get seven billion simples out of twentysix letters of the alphabet, even by considering the marks that graphically compose them. Anyways, if they go through such a tight bottleneck of complexes in the construction, why the need for such a greater number of simples? I don't get it.

I don't think you could possibly be that dumb!!! In my OP I said, “the first requisite of an ideal language would be that there should be one name for every simple (a simple being a thing which cannot be broken into a complex of concepts). I am talking about a hypothetical perfect language (able to express any possible concept) and you want to build it out of the 26 letters of western alphabet. You miss the entire point that those 26 letters are complex concepts themselves, built from a great many underlying simples. “Simples”, by definition, cannot be broken into collections of underlying concepts. The very idea that a perfect language could be built with a mere twenty six concepts is totally idiotic. You could not possibly be that dumb so I presume you are simply trying to bury the concept of a “simple” in meaningless babble. If all the concepts necessary to build a perfect language could be completely represented by 26 letters, why the devil would schools bother to teach anything beyond the alphabet? They can be used to represent "simples" but they are clearly not "simples".

 

A map is not the territory: i.e., a representation is not the thing being represented! I am not concerned with creating or representing a perfect language. I am merely concerned with "representing" a complex concept in a perfect language built on "simples".

 

Just why didn't you back off to the old philosophic “simples”: fire, earth, wind and water? Why, well I think it was because your subterfuge would have been too obvious and even real dummies might have grasped that your complaint was totally thoughtless.

 

Even written Chinese doesn't have many simples:http://www.ebridge.cn/new/languages/lan.php?sno=1303

That's only one more than Wittgenstein said, Dick, only one more measly simple than he reckoned!

Again, you apparently want to do no more than cast doubt on my representations sufficient to persuade ignoramuses to not think about what I say. In my opinion that is nothing but pure “troll” activity!

 

The things in our mental image of these circumstances are not really “simples” and the language with which we think about them is not perfect.

 

The issue here is not what [math](x_1,x_2,x_3,\cdots,x_n,t)[/math] represents but rather that there exists nothing which is not representable by such a notation. It is, in itself, a perfect language; however, the moment we translate it into any common language, that perfection vanishes. That does not mean it cannot be translated and I will use translation of specific explanations to uncover important constraints.

Now I will admit that translation of a concept represented by [math](x_1,x_2,x_3,\cdots,x_n,t)[/math] is not always possible; however, if the concept of interest exists in the language under examination the translation can always be made. But as I said the perfection of the representation vanishes in the translation.

 

The only conclusion I can come to is that you have no interest in understanding anything I say and, if that is indeed the case, your role here must be otherwise. I take it to be obfuscation of the obvious to the best of your powers.

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

When God created husbands, he told women that they could find good, decent, honorable and trustworthy men in all the corners of the Earth. Then he made the world round!

-- from my wife while I was proofreading this post!