• 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.

Informal Discussion on the Philosophy of Science

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,996
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?
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
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.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
Flagging this for later.......


I will say that I disagree strongly with this assertion:
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.
 
T

ThatGirl

Guest
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.
 

Usehername

On a mission
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
3,794
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. :)
 

dnivera

New member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
165
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp
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.
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
1,941
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
512
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
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.
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
  • What is science's purpose?
To find out how and why things do/are the things they do/are.

  • What place does it hold in the grand scheme of things?
To further our insight into how things work.

  • How do you believe scientific work is done?
Trial and error with an open mind, ideally.

  • How do you believe it ought to be done?
Ah.. see above.

  • What is science?
Our current understanding of the "rules".

  • What is psuedo-science?
Assumptions based upon assumptions with little or no regard to whether they play out in the harsh light of "prove it".

  • What are your thoughts on the social sciences as compared to the life sciences or physical sciences?
88.2% of all statistics are made up on the spot. However of the 21.8% there are some real gems.

  • What about medical practice or engineering? How are they related to science?
Medical practice is more often the result of science but it can also propel it forwards. Engineering has nothing to do with science. Engineers are too dumb to understand it and they wouldn't change what they were doing anyway because they learnt it from a REAL engineer and these science bods aren't engineers so what would they know? They don't even understand what a tap is unless it emits water!!

  • Any other philosophical thoughts on science?
Yes. Quit wasting time on trying to predict the universe and get your asses into gear so we can go look up close!
 
Top