Science

[heart]

I am curious what the different types would think/feel about the following quote:

Science is not objective. Science is fundamentally about the uses of measurement. What does not fit the yardstick of the scientist is discarded. Scientific determinism has repeatedly excluded some data from its measurement and fudged other data.

 

[darlets]

I think the quote suffers from a common tactic of trying to turn the b.s factor up slowly hoping no one would notice. The statements become more and more out there as the author progresses, though it's hard to know exactly what they are refering too towards the end. Does it have more context?

Does the author state what has been fudged? What data has been thrown out?

How do we know it's been discarded if we haven't measured it? Surely our senses are measurement instruments?

 

[niffer]

Er. Well, it could be right, but my own definition of science is pretty loose. In fact, kind of nonexistant. Science is basically..how stuff works. And since stuff works, we now only need to find out the how. Science is the art of answering "how" and "why" questions. And so it doesn't really matter if scientists exclude certain things because of course, in order to completely explain something (as opposed to an isolated system or whatever that is "down to a science"), one would have to explain the entire world, which would be very time consuming and also wouldn't be completely accurate, since accuracy is kinda subjective too. (Am I making sense?)

Either way, it's kinda hard to be objective about something that is a part of a very big whole which interacts with lots of other parts that make it, including that one.

Um. Please tell me if I've got the definition of objective wrong.

 

[heart]

There is no right or wrong way to answer as far as I am concerned. I am just curious as to what the reactions of the different types would be to this quote.

 

[Sahara]

I find I can not make up my mind yet as there is not enough information, the only thought that keeps coming to mind, is what specific case with fudged up data are they talking about.

 

[niffer]

There is no right or wrong way to answer as far as I am concerned. I am just curious as to what the reactions of the different types would be to this quote.

Very interesting idea for a thread, btw.

 

[runvardh]

That's not science, thats just a pessimistic description for the beaurocracy of the scientific community. Science is a search for truth, the beaurocracy (at worst) just wants their truth.

 

[ptgatsby]

The quote is contradicted by the concept that science is eventually predictive. That which predicts cannot of errantly thrown away relevent factors.

 

[runvardh]

The quote is contradicted by the concept that science is eventually predictive. That which predicts cannot of errantly thrown away relevent factors.

Hence why I saw it more as a description of beaurocracy instead.

 

[Athenian200]

I would say that it represents one view of Science. Even scientists admit that science isn't perfect, and can't take everything into account. It is limited by the data available, and the mental constraints of human beings. A certain amount of ambiguity has to be dealt with, as we can't perfectly model reality in the theoretical.

I'm probably INFJ.

 

[Hellbourn3]

I have to say I agree with PT's statement, and to be honest it contradicts the opinion that I'd held throughout the whole time reading through this thread. I was going to say that if they're focusing on a founded or established science then to some extent the quote is nonsensical and erroneous. However, if they were focusing on the formation and fruition of a new science, then to some extent it's true. In light of the points I'd read further however, science is all trial and error. A hypothesis is nothing more than a thought waiting to be tried. If something is scientifically based - even if it proves to be a faulty idea - and it may prove useful later, (which is highly likely) nothing can ever be subjective as everything will fit into some objective measure at some point in time. This is even if the objective measure is proving that the thought is erroneous.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

I am curious what the different types would think/feel about the following quote:

Every statement in your quote is true, but one always has to wonder what argument the speaker is trying to make. Science, like all human undertakings, has flaws in it. The nice thing about the scientific method is that the process tends to correct mistakes as more data is discovered and more experiments are performed. So in the long run the mistakes will be corrected, but then again the long run may even be thousands or millions of years from now, and that doesn't necessarily help us in the present.

 

[heart]

I think the speaker was talking about how some people get into Scientism, where Science is seen as a infallible new type of dogma, a new god as.

I was just curious to see how different types would react to the statements.

 

[sundowning]

I am curious what the different types would think/feel about the following quote:

True insofar as the definition can be moulded to fit any given circumstance.

If we run a test dropping a ball-bearing and find that nine drops produce a value for gravity around 9.8 m/s^2 within error but that a tenth is over the limit, are we fudging the facts, as it were, if we ignore it?

 

[Sona]

I am curious what the different types would think/feel about the following quote:

that quote comes form someone who never heard of the scientific method.

 

[JAVO]

The point has some truth, but is pedantically overstated. As with most things, the truth is more complicated and boring than most care to read about or discuss. Writers are generally more interested in being dramatic or persuasive than an accurate analysis of an issue.

 

[Mycroft]

I think the speaker was talking about how some people get into Scientism, where Science is seen as a infallible new type of dogma, a new god as.

Nietzsche, Jung, and a myriad of other thinkers have addressed just this. Science is concerned with what is objective and verifiable. Science cannot address humankind's subjective, spiritual needs. When science is treated as the end-all-be-all explanatory force, mankind's need for spiritual fulfillment eventually expresses itself in nationalism, psychological illnesses, etc.

As this quote doesn't go into what the speaker is referring to, I can't comment on it specifically. This could either be the opening salvo to a critique of shortsightedness on the part of scientists or a critique of science itself for neglecting spiritual factors. Amongst other things.

Science is the art of answering "how" and "why" questions.

Science is only concerned with "how". "Why" is the realm of religion and spirituality.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

I am curious what the different types would think/feel about the following quote:

I find the quote refreshing, and it puts into words a feeling I've had for a long time that I could not express as concisely as this person did.

Science is excellent at determining the physical laws of the universe...the ones we know about anyway. Science, however, is not very good at saying "I don't know". When science doesn't know, it dismisses.

For an example far afield, think of a football player. Sometimes there is a football player who doesn't have very good statistics, but is said by all to be a valuable part of the team; maybe he has strong leadership skills, maybe he sets an example by practicing hard. Science can measure how many touchdowns he's scored, but science would underestimate this player's value because it can't measure leadership or heart.

Science is a very valuable tool and has contributed a great deal to humanity. But it isn't the answer to everything. In fact, it usually isn't the answer to anything when it comes to the great questions of humanity.

 

[Mycroft]

When science doesn't know, it dismisses.

Please cite one concrete example of this. (I like how you've anthropomorphized science, by the way.)

 

[reason]