User Tag List

12 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 11

  1. #1

    Default Informal Discussion on the Philosophy of Science

    I know my discussions can get quite technical. This may become technical at points too, but I want to make clear that I mean this to be informal--mostly the for airing of thoughts, impressions, etc., and probing for clarification.

    What is science's purpose?
    What place does it hold in the grand scheme of things?

    How do you believe scientific work is done?
    How do you believe it ought to be done?

    What is science?
    What is psuedo-science?

    What are your thoughts on the social sciences as compared to the life sciences or physical sciences?

    What about medical practice or engineering? How are they related to science?

    Any other philosophical thoughts on science?

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  2. #2
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    1. Science doesn't have a purpose, people do.
    2. Science is concerned with theories which can be potentially criticised by experimental tests.
    3. Scientific work is done by people, each with their own assumptions, methods and goals.
    4. Scientific work ought to be conducted with the aim of discovering informative and true theories.
    5. Psuedo-science is a concern with theories which cannot potentially be criticised by experimental tests, but which has the appearence of being science.
    6. There are no major differences between the social and physical sciences, and some minor differences e.g. how tests are conducted, variables controlled, and problems concerning reproducibility of tests.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  3. #3
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Flagging this for later.......


    I will say that I disagree strongly with this assertion:
    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    6. There are no major differences between the social and physical sciences, and some minor differences e.g. how tests are conducted, variables controlled, and problems concerning reproducibility of tests.

  4. #4
    ThatGirl
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    I know my discussions can get quite technical. This may become technical at points too, but I want to make clear that I mean this to be informal--mostly the for airing of thoughts, impressions, etc., and probing for clarification.

    What is science's purpose?
    What place does it hold in the grand scheme of things?

    How do you believe scientific work is done?
    How do you believe it ought to be done?

    What is science?
    What is psuedo-science?

    What are your thoughts on the social sciences as compared to the life sciences or physical sciences?

    What about medical practice or engineering? How are they related to science?

    Any other philosophical thoughts on science?
    The purpose of science is as simple as what humans have been trying to achieve since the dawn of their exsistence. To take control of the world we live in. Most people who persue sciences understand that everything has a deffinition and reason. If we come to understand the reason we become masters of our enviornments whether on a personal or worldly level. This seems to be the course of human nature IMO. The problem with becomeing masters of our enviornment lies in the ethical correlation where humanity looses the human concept. I believe that science holds great responsibility that cannot be shunned, balance is nessesary.

    I believe scientific work is done in a number of ways that range from every day concepts to world changing movements. Ie, from making the first tools to curing diseases. I believe it should be done with caution. If narrowed to one scientific perspective it can destroy everything science has come to understand. There are inevitably two sides to the coin.

    All science comes down to understanding and control. Like anything else it can be corrupted or highly valuable. Science is as good as the motivation behind it, and is only as accurate as the perspective it embraces.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    My head hurts. *exits, informally*

  6. #6
    On a mission Usehername's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    3,823

    Default

    Last year I was in third-year chem labs. This year I'm an Arts student.


    I have thoughts on this, but will come back later in the week when I'm done my homework.
    *You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.
    *Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason once accepted, despite your changing moods.
    C.S. Lewis

  7. #7
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Let's narrow this down to time travel.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  8. #8
    ThatGirl
    Guest

    Default

    did I get it wrong?

  9. #9
    Senior Member dnivera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp
    Socionics
    LSI?
    Posts
    165

    Default

    My 15-second answer:

    Science is an ideology - any kind of power system that maintains hegemony - just like religion (Christianity) was the ruling ideology 1000 years ago in Europe. Science is now the ruling ideology of our day and anything outside its explanation is naught (paranormal phenomena, ghosts, etc). Science is what justifies power structures and why we believe certain things to be true, and others not.
    Si>Ti>Te>Ne>Fe>Ni>Fi>Se

    Introverted (I) 60% Extroverted (E) 40%
    Sensing (S) 56.25% Intuitive (N) 43.75%
    Thinking (T) 61.29% Feeling (F) 38.71%
    Judging (J) 71.88% Perceiving (P) 28.13%

  10. #10
    / nonsequitur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    512 sp/so
    Posts
    1,821

    Default

    What is science's purpose?
    There is no general purpose. Everyone has their own agenda.

    What place does it hold in the grand scheme of things?
    What grand scheme of things?

    How do you believe scientific work is done?
    The people who are best at selling their ideas and promoting profit get the grants/money/fame. Often, people lie. Often, people twist their interpretation of results for the grants/fame. Any experiment can be framed as a scientific paper, regardless of how crap the reasoning is. Weasel words are common, and controls are often lacking. I have read more dodgy papers than I care to count. I have also referenced these same papers just to prove my own point (even when I didn't believe what was said). Short-cuts are paramount in the rush to write papers, and assumptions are completely unvoiced. The publishing/journal system based on impact factor is also suspect. Intellectual integrity is lacking in a large part of academia and industry.

    How do you believe it ought to be done?
    I don't think there is a way that it "ought" to be done. Academia and idealism/ethics don't mix very well. Just make sure that when you do dodgy things, you cover your ass and don't get caught.

    What is science?
    The process of using existing technology and tools to attempt to describe the world in a reductionist approach. Also the process of trying to get your name on as many papers as possible so that you can hopefully obtain tenure and/or an industry position and finally have a stable income.

    What is psuedo-science?
    The process of using existing technology and tools to attempt to describe the world in an extrapolative and unverifiable approach.

    What are your thoughts on the social sciences as compared to the life sciences or physical sciences?
    A whole lot of generalisations, not enough controls, of debatable benefit to people. On the plus side of things, it's not often that assumptions go unvoiced in social sciences. What else would social scientists write papers about?

    What about medical practice or engineering? How are they related to science?
    Medical practice is more of an art. Engineering is more of designing tools. Science uses existing tools.

    Any other philosophical thoughts on science?
    I gave up trying to analyse science generally and philosophically because the existing philosophies (excluding Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) did not describe my experiences with any degree of accuracy.

Similar Threads

  1. Bertrand Russell on the value of philosophy
    By ygolo in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-12-2015, 03:15 AM
  2. Replies: 41
    Last Post: 04-28-2011, 08:15 PM
  3. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-25-2007, 01:35 AM
  4. A Note on the Problem of Induction
    By reason in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-19-2007, 08:47 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO