Science is mere info/data?

[Biochemist]

...What difference is there between implications and consequences?...

It is reasonable to differentiate meaning (as in "meaning of life") from determination of cause and effect. The various bodies of knowledge that we characterize as science are mostly attempts to describe cause and effect. Much of science is descriptive (like biology for example) but as the body of science deepens, even those areas progress toward cause-and-effect models.

 

None of this establishes "meaning" in the sense that animals, plants, humans or the universe might have a purpose. Usually that discussion is in the realm of religion or philosophy. It is undeniably true that many folks are driven to understand the cause-and-effect elements of science because of religious or philosophical assumptions.

 

But cause-and-effect determinism does not establish man's purpose, and man's purpose probably cannot be determined by the scientific method.

 

Personally, I think "meaning" matters. It appears that some on this site do not feel that quite so strongly.

[TINNY]

so is science neutral?

[Queso]

so is science neutral?

i would think so, seeing as how the discovery of things can be great to the people willing to progress, and annoying to the ones who don't want to progress and discover. so science balances itself out amung the world.

[TINNY]

i would think so, seeing as how the discovery of things can be great to the people willing to progress, and annoying to the ones who don't want to progress and discover. so science balances itself out amung the world.

science per se therefore is inadequate to know truth.

[TINNY]

i would think so, seeing as how the discovery of things can be great to the people willing to progress, and annoying to the ones who don't want to progress and discover. so science balances itself out amung the world.

science per se therefore is inadequate to know truth and provide a philosophy of life?

[Queso]

i have no idea how to answer that question, i am not sure at all.

[Biochemist]

so is science neutral?

"Science" has no opinion. People do. I think it is impossible for an individual to be non-biased. The scientific method presumes bias on the part of researchers. We structure experimental design to minimize bias, and we have peer review processes to minimize the perpetuation of bias. But everyone has it. The most insidious purveyors of bias are those that contend they have none.

 

Facts are facts, but it is very difficult to separate facts from interpretation of facts. To contend otherwise is naive.

[Biochemist]

science per se therefore is inadequate to know truth and provide a philosophy of life?

Science does not provide a worldview. Science can provide a set of facts that underpin a worldview. But for most folks, the worldview is the lens through which they interpret facts.

 

Even issues that should be fundamental fact positions are not easily resolved by a listing of facts. Finding "facts" is often difficult. For example, I think gradualism is poorly supported. This puts me in a minority position among a lot of smart folks on this site. I acknowledge that minority position, but I discount the vast majority of things I read here that support gradualism. I see most opinions here as artful interpretations of rare facts. If I were a believer in gradualism, I would look at the majority of people on this site (many very smart, very informed) and take the weight of their informed opinions as additional support for my view. It takes a lot of data to get someone to shift a fact position.

 

And gradualism is a reasonably simple issue, compared to those issues that are not demonstrable by the scientific method. Issues such as the purpose of mankind, our relationship with our Creator, and our responsibilities in the world are entirely opinion, without much fact basis. For most folks, this set of opinions sets their worldview, and establishes the framework within which we arrange our "facts".

 

Separate of facts from interpretation of facts is a constant challenge. To quote that philosophical sage, Paul Simon "all lies in jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" (from "The Boxer").

[paultrr]

so is science neutral?

 

Science can be. But its lack of evidence on things like God, etc can be construed as saying there may be none. However, by the book, if God was supernatural then in essence we cannot use science to study God. We could at best only study the process by which he might have created all which since its naturalistic would tend to come across as the result of natural process which leads one back to an easy assumption that even if there is a God he or she is not personally involved in everything. That's why when it comes to personal ideas on all this one tends to find the Athiest possition, the agnostic possition and at times the deist position held by scientists. One can also find more liberal christian ideas expressed also. But here you are crossing into personal ideas, beliefs, philosophy, etc.

[infamous]

philosophy and science... gotta use both of your brains--left and right.

 

thats symmetry!

what am i talking about??... :note:

 

Good point Tim; I quess one could say that scientific knowledge are the bricks and philosophy is the mortar.

[Qfwfq]

Science can be. But its lack of evidence on things like God, etc can be construed as saying there may be none. However, by the book, if God was supernatural then in essence we cannot use science to study God.

Quite, theology is a totally different branch of philosophy.

[Kriminal99]

Science is nothing really, except maybe a malformed concept. The world is what it is. The basic idea of science is to try to capture that. However in order to do anything you need reasoning.

 

Using scientific experiments we collect information on correlations between different things. However this is already going too far to try and claim that our reasoning is a matter of simple fact. This is something that many people have problems understanding. In reality the only thing that can be claimed without generalization of some form about any situation from which information gathered is what occured in that specific instance. That means at time x, location y, with infinite enviornmental factors, such and such occured.

 

There is no such thing as "proof" and this may something which was purposefully constructed to prevent deviation from scientific belief. Asking for proof in a sense is equivalent to asking someone to force you to believe something. If you don't want to believe it bad enough, then noone can force you. You might consider a statement you can break down into steps as simple as 1+1=2 close enough to being proof, because every person can clearly see that 1+1=2 and therefore noone would have reason to contradict such statements and everyone would feel intense imagined social pressure trying to contradict such a simple statement. However a scientific experiment can never be objective "proof" of anything- in order for a scientific experiment to be unbiased, the experimenter would have to first test for infinite possible sources of bias inherent into their sampling method. IE if you choose people for a drug experiment on a street corner, and 10 feet from that corner is a Starbucks, then maybe 69% of the people you choose will be coffee drinkers and maybe 89% of coffee drinkers would have a better response to your drug. And whats worse, maybe you know this and are using it stealthily to get the results you want.

 

 

Then you have the problem with science that it depends on some kind of non-existent 3rd person abstract "body of knowledge". As if a person is going to take from someone else that y occured from an experiment the same as if they would had they experienced it themselves. In courtrooms this is called hearsay and disposed of because in this place where a man has the highest motivation to seek the best reasoning they have realized its utter uselessness.

 

Science and its associated dogma is extremely outdated. Some scientists may try and claim that science encompasses reasoning and therefore any pursuit of knowledge could be called science as well as anything else. However the very ideas which differentiate science from other pursuits of knowledge are fallacious...

[Tormod]

Science and its associated dogma is extremely outdated. Some scientists may try and claim that science encompasses reasoning and therefore any pursuit of knowledge could be called science as well as anything else. However the very ideas which differentiate science from other pursuits of knowledge are fallacious...

 

Interesting. Why did you bother to sign up at a science forum, then? It seems to me you haven't got the slightest clue as to what science is in the first place!

 

Can you give me some examples of A) "the very ideas which differentiate science from other pursuits of knowledge and :hihi: "other pursuits of knowledge"?

[Biochemist]

Can you give me some examples of A) "the very ideas which differentiate science from other pursuits of knowledge and :hihi: "other pursuits of knowledge"?

First of all, interesting first post Kriminal. You certainly started with a hot button.

 

In partial support for K's potision, I have noticed a small subset of this site (excluding you, by the way, Tormod) that seems to regard "reasoning" as exclusively the province of basic science. There is, of course, nothing inherently good or bad about the scientific method. It just is. And it provides a process for verification for underlying facts, and a process whereby those facts can be externally corroborated.

 

I have noticed that some here regard other forms of reasoning (in philosophy, for example) as of a different quality. Different, in this context, often means lower. Ergo, discussions that relate to the purpose of man, the meaning of relationships, the value of specific actions, the existence of a Creator, etc. are somehow less important because they do not lend themselves to evidentiary analysis by the scientific method.

 

Overall, I suggest that we can fairly regard the scientific method as the province of science. Reason, however, is not restricted to the scientific method.

[Tormod]

I have noticed that some here regard other forms of reasoning (in philosophy, for example) as of a different quality.

 

There are many forms of reasoning. There are also many forms of logic. That is why we differentiate between welformed and malformed logic statements. It is very basic, really - if P, then Q, etc. The set of logical rules are basically a law - if they are not followed, then the result is likely (note "likely") to be either bad, wrong, or at the very best randomly correct.

 

When I say "law" I mean that when the results someone get from their research violate logic, the scientific method must be applied to learn whether it is correct or not. Can the data be interpreted differently? Can the experiment be performed in another way? Can others reproduce our results? Are there any hidden types of bias in our experiment?

 

A good philosopher is able to think about the world and construct logical theories which are coherent, yet they do not necessarily match what we observe through scientific study. An example here is aryanism - it is an ideology based on very specific thoughts, yet it is not founded on scientific study.

 

The problem arises the instant the philosophy is sold as science and/or factual truth, and the scientific model disregarded.

 

That is how hoaxes and ideologies appear, and it usually boils down to misinterpretation and quite often willful mangling of data (for example a study that shows the white "race" to be supreme). And that is really what is at issue here - while a philosopher is free to think about anything without proof, a scientist *must* work through proof.

 

This is one of the reasons why cosmology is in many respects a philosophical study while astrophysics is not! Because the cosmologist needs to think about where the universe comes from and what initial conditions there were, which is impossible to prove. These are mainly philosophical questions, and remain so until we can find evidence. A good cosmologist will still apply the scientific model, however. The lack of data (for example, we only have one universe to study) is a problem and as such means that empirical data is not available - and empirical data is one of the main components of the scientific method.

 

The astrophysicist, on the other hand, studies what is observed in the universe - the age and components of stars, the orbits of planets, the composition of gases in interstellar space. These are all measurable and can be used and deducted empirically. Astrophysics teaches us how the sun works, for example.

 

Cosmology teaches us things about the universe that we cannot observe directly (or at least can be said to be so elusive that we only have indirect evidence)- for example the inflationary theory, the big bang, the size of the physical universe etc. Obviously, a cosmologist needs to know what is going on in many fields and as such must be a very good scientist.

 

Overall, I suggest that we can fairly regard the scientific method as the province of science. Reason, however, is not restricted to the scientific method.

 

I think we could say that reason is not restricted to anything. There is in principle no correct or incorrect way to think. There is, however, specific demands placed on thinkers if they want to follow this or that school of thought - and within the realms of science, those demands are stricter than in other areas.

 

Remember that science and philosophy are closely linked. Before the term "scientist" was coined they called themselves natural philosopers, as opposed to the religious thinkers. This had nothing to do with their personal beliefs, but separated the pure thinkers from the experimentalists. Michael Faraday, discoverer of electromagnetism, is a classic example of a natural philosopher.

[Kriminal99]

Interesting. Why did you bother to sign up at a science forum, then? It seems to me you haven't got the slightest clue as to what science is in the first place!

 

Can you give me some examples of A) "the very ideas which differentiate science from other pursuits of knowledge and :hihi: "other pursuits of knowledge"?

 

They were in the same post. Summarized:

 

The concept of an objective 3rd person scientific body of knowledge, or in other words the idea of communication of factual evidence across people with different biases.

 

The concept of physical evidence as proof without a need for reasoning which could always prove wrong.

 

The concept of an authorty on any intellectual subject, as far as that is involved with science. (Which I did not mention last post, and is tied to the first thing mentioned here)

 

Alternatives, if you understood the line that you quoted, means ways of searching for knowledge that overlap science in some regards and are different in other regards.

 

Science may be advanced compared to many philosophies in terms of objectivity but I can give an example of at least one that is more advanced than the general methods of science, although it may not be usable in all cases.

 

That is an argument which everyone can follow using their own first person experience and can be broken into very simple, non contraversial steps. Mathematics is an example of this, however it is a specialized case only useful for numbers. It can be done with any kind of idea, and once a person knows how to do this they can create arguments which anyone can understand without having to first teach them how to make such arguments themselves. By this I do not mean the typical metaphor ridden products of philosophy, but I mean instead step by step simple arguments which would be extremely hard to debate.

 

If it were still ancient times, such arguments would definitely have driven us down a different path in the investigation of knowledge: One that revolved around refinement of arguments and not physical evidence. In today's age however, a person making such an argument would have to overcome the average intellectual's unfounded belief that any argument which does not point to experimental data produced by someone with a phd is not useful.

 

If Science recognized this as even possible, then many scientific disciplines would not exist because of their inherent inferiority to such a method. For example those disciplines which investigate human behavior apart from its physical realization.

[Tormod]

The concept of physical evidence as proof without a need for reasoning which could always prove wrong.

 

Please provide examples. I am not sure what you are referring to when you say science is based on proof wothout requiring reasoning.

 

The concept of an authorty on any intellectual subject, as far as that is involved with science.

 

Such as...?

 

Alternatives, if you understood the line that you quoted, means ways of searching for knowledge that overlap science in some regards and are different in other regards.

 

Such as...? You are failing to explain to me what differentiates science from the "other ways". Without knowing what you are referring to I am unable to comprehend your meaning here.

 

Science may be advanced compared to many philosophies in terms of objectivity but I can give an example of at least one that is more advanced than the general methods of science...In today's age however, a person making such an argument would have to overcome the average intellectual's unfounded belief that any argument which does not point to experimental data produced by someone with a phd is not useful.

 

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

If Science recognized this as even possible, then many scientific disciplines would not exist because of their inherent inferiority to such a method. For example those disciplines which investigate human behavior apart from its physical realization.

 

That what is possible? And disciplines such as...?