• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Instrumentalism, Phenomenalism, and Scientific Realism.

"In science there are no 'depths'; there is surface everywhere." -Rudolf Carnap.

  • I mostly agree

    Votes: 5 62.5%
  • I mostly disagree

    Votes: 3 37.5%

  • Total voters
    8

Aleph-One

New member
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
155
MBTI Type
INTJ
I know I'm going to regret starting this thread.

Does science describe the world as it is? Do our scientific theories capture, as some scientists claim, a deep structure of the universe? Is it the quest of science to learn how things are, or is it instead a process of determining what we can say about nature? Which poll option did you pick, and why?
 

Fluffywolf

Nips away your dignity
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
9,581
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I mostly agree for all facts. So pure known science.

But to unravel and understand new science, one must go to great depths! One should not dwell on the surface of others, but attempt to surface a piece of land on their own. :D
 

Octarine

The Eighth Colour
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
1,351
MBTI Type
Aeon
Enneagram
10w
Instinctual Variant
so
While the 'whys' can be important for human cognition, they tend to be the most transient aspect of science (as certain philosophers predict). It is the body of observation that is the least transient in science, followed by the 'hows'. Now the hows tend to move in evolutionary, rather than revolutionary steps. (for a more formal explanation of the history of science, see Kuhn)
 

Mephistopheles

New member
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
160
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
6w5
Science is like drawing a picture of something without having seen it yourself, solely based upon the descriptions others gave you and your own conclusions. So to answer your question, no, science doesn't describe how the world is, but how it could be. If we could actually see how things ARE, we wouldn't need science.

Also, I disagree with the quote. Even with very few axioms, you can draw quite many deductive conclusions, every of these conclusions describing the mechanics underneath the insight you had before, and that's what I see as "going deep". But I think if we begin to discuss it, I'll beat myself with someone who simply has a differing definition of "going deep".^^
 
A

Anew Leaf

Guest
I know I'm going to regret starting this thread.

Does science describe the world as it is? Do our scientific theories capture, as some scientists claim, a deep structure of the universe? Is it the quest of science to learn how things are, or is it instead a process of determining what we can say about nature? Which poll option did you pick, and why?

Looking at the quote, I see it both ways. There is surface everywhere... but their depth can be a relative thing. Some areas may have knowledge like the Mariana Trench beneath them, and others may have just a thin veil of atoms. To someone who studies atoms and quarks and neutrinos and all of those tiny little bits.... that thin veil of atoms can be a very deep exploration.

I remember a quote saying, "Religion without Science is blind, and Science without Religion is lame." I have always liked thinking about it. I enjoy drawing my perspective from a wide variety of viewpoints, both factual and faith based. I like reading about science to help me understand what it is that I am seeing, but I also don't want to get so enveloped by the science that I lose the wonder and excitement of the world around me.

I know this is an extremely INFP answer with vagueness and frippery and a sprinkling of glitter so thanks for your patience. ;)
 

Betty Blue

Let me count the ways
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
5,063
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7W6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Scientific results change, there is no real constant, it evolves.
Some things feel real to me, others i take for granted as being real based on "evidence" ultimately imo it's to do with perception.
Do we even exist?
Also, see sig.
 
Top