Philosophy of Science: Science is About Solving Puzzles

[coberst]

Philosophy of Science: Science is About Solving Puzzles

 

I think that understanding the concept ‘paradigm’ and the nature of puzzle solving are two necessary conditions for understanding the concept ‘science’.

 

I suspect many fail to recognize that ‘science’ has the general meaning “a department of systematized knowledge as an object of knowledge”. ‘Science’ is generally a word used to denote the natural sciences or more likely technology in general.

 

Normal science—as Thomas Kuhn labels it in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” moves forward in a “successive transition from one paradigm to another”. A paradigm defines the theory, rules and standards of practice. “In the absence of a paradigm or some candidate for paradigm, all of the facts that could possible pertain to the development of a given science are likely to seem equally relevant.”

 

Practitioners of normal science are expert puzzle-solvers. “One of the things a scientific community acquires with a paradigm is a criterion for choosing problems that, while the paradigm is taken for granted, can be assumed to have solutions…One of the reasons why normal science seems to progress so rapidly is that its practitioners concentrate on problems that only their own lack of ingenuity should keep them from solving.”

 

Practitioners of normal science have:

1) A paradigm that defines the theory, rules and standards of practice.

2) Expertise as puzzle-solvers. Puzzles are assumed to have solutions.

3) A criterion for choosing problems for solution.

4) Concrete problems for solution i.e. problems with solutions and only lack of ingenuity causes failure.

 

I suspect that it is a common mistake to think that natural sciences are so successful because of the creative faculties of the scientist rather than their ingenuity at puzzle solving. Kuhn and I think the success rests on the puzzle solving skills of the practitioners.

 

Ingenious—marked by especial aptitude at discovering, inventing, or contriving; marked by originality, resourcefulness, and cleverness in conception or execution

 

Creative—bring into existence, to invest with a new form, office, or rank; to produce through imaginative skill; to make or bring into existence something new.

[Kriminal99]

Modern science is no more succesful then other means of discovering the nature of the world around us would have been. You don't have any other systems to compare it with.

 

Personally I think that the attributes of science which would seperate it from any other large scale ways of thinking about how to understand the world around us that deal with philosophical dillemas like global skepticism (knowledge is the absence of dissenting information, you should try to disprove a theory through experimentation) are wrong.

 

For instance there is no such thing as a third person body of knowledge. You can't have scientists conduct experiments and then give the results to non scientists as if they conducted the experiments themselves. One because the scientists may have biases that you might not have, and two because there is no such thing as an authoritative source. Trying to emphasize one theory over another or threatening or encouraging phds to come to agreement to cause less confusion is not a valid tactic either. The fact that not all scientists agree on things naturally shows that they are not even competent to serve as authoritative sources, even if the biases were not an issue.

 

edited for unnecessary quote

[InfiniteNow]

Was it really necessary to quote the whole post to make a two sentence reply?

 

 

As per coberst's post, what you said is valid for some, but not all. Just as we cannot say that all religious people are x,y, and z, you cannot (accurately) say that all science/scientists are this, that, or the other.

[coberst]

Infinity

 

Hypography - Helping to eliminate ignorance in the world, one post at a time.

 

I do like this idea! I think I shall use it as my own. Is it yours or is it the forums?

[Tormod]

The fact that not all scientists agree on things naturally shows that they are not even competent to serve as authoritative sources, even if the biases were not an issue.

 

Now that is one giant generalization if I've ever seen one.

 

I'd say that the fact that they don't agree on (all) things, and science's demand that you should make up your own mind based on the evidence you have, naturally shows that scientists are more reliable than most other "authoritative sources".

[Zythryn]

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

The fact that not all scientists agree on things naturally shows that they are not even competent to serve as authoritative sources, even if the biases were not an issue.

 

By that logic, the fact that the pope disagrees with God/the Bible means that neither one of those are competent to serve as authoritative sources?

 

"God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.--Matthew 15:4"

 

Disagreement is normal and good in any area of knowlege or faith. It tests our assumptions and/or conclusions and allows us to review our base of knowlege with new insight.

 

In science, it is how we either reafirm knowlege, or correct innacuracies.