Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

Science

The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2012 6:49:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: what I noticed today is that on wikipedia, there definition of science has been changes in more in accordence with original philosophic.

Its cleary represents a change of awareness, of people. Its so popular as least on here that natural science is the science. When is and only has been a particular branch. It says something about making progress in a wider understanding. Not that I think its all in Good, faith.

If anything to force Social Science as having a similar authority. I fear that science. Argueing against Social Science is hard, because of the back lash it creates. But the sense of cognitive dissonence in my stomach, from thinking of what I know about it. Is just as hard to stand. Argueing againt Social Science creates a hostile back lash because its embed with "the values" of western society. Its not that I am against them but I am for them having rational grounds, and justifications for any claim to knowledge. There is nothing just about forcing your values on other which cannot be justified. Mind you I am probably a minority that thinks that Moral philosophy and sociology, can be done on rationaly objective and universal grounds. Many people think it is, because its called science. But that the facade.

After natural philosophy took off it became 'commonly' called The Science. It was not for another 200 years as being known as The science. That many other disciplines which couldn't show progress or simply could not be forms of knowledge in a TGB sense, Tried to apply the objective sense of the scientific method to try and make them progress. Upon this attempt these arbirary set disciplines were called Social sciences. But attempt to make it objective in the same sense FAILED!. They never actually were able to become justified in that sense. But they continued with the name and some non-falsifiable method, where they just assume complex and often incredibly vageuly explanation True. say that because I dont' think such things hit people as irrational as you see I am often so quick to claim, But I will say it again, they by bold assertion assume a very complex explantion usually purely ideological based and they are concedered Truth without a doubt. And then create experiment that could only at best support thier claim, but never show them true or false. If something failed to show support they create new ones its obsbure and impossible objective manner untill something support the ideology. That is just like making lets say an Islamic science which can only every support The Muslim Religion, when the theory are contradicted aka proven false in any other form a rational sense what so every. They say its only error, like as thought its like physical tool, that can have 0.1 error. But there 0 justification of even that. I am sure nobody cares. I am not againt, sociology, nor am I against God, But I am against, a completly giving up on a rational approach(not the name rational or the name objective) by an actual demarcatable critieria. That we could actually know. After the science failed. The main argument there is no absolute truth of science therefor its just another science. (in philosphy of social science)I expect some backlash but I would be intrested about thoughts about this. (I am not claiming all of it is completely irrational or non-objective. But a huge majority.) And some things to happen to actually reflect the world but not because of the science but because they theory just happend to be reasonbly grasped by speculation anyway.

I am curious if anybody cares about these things, I know am probably alone on this. I feel what it must to have been like being an Athiest in the 1600's in regards to modern times. If anybody has anything positive creative critism of positive questions only. I would like to hear it and I will respond. It might not happen but I expect the typical hostility.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2012 2:04:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: what I noticed today is that on wikipedia,is that their definition of science has been changed to be in more accordence with original philosophic sense.

It cleary represents a change of awareness, of people. It is popular as least on here that natural science is the science. When it only has been a particular branch. It says something about making progress in a wider understanding. Not that I think its all in Good, faith.

If anything its to force Social Science as having a similar authority. I fear that type of science.
Argueing against Social Science is hard, because of the back lash it creates. But the sense of cognitive dissonence in my stomach, from thinking of what I know about it is just as harder to understand. Argueing againt Social Science creates a hostile back lash because its embed with "the values" of western society. Its not that I am against them but I am for them having rational grounds, and justifications for claims of knowledge. There is nothing "just" about forcing your values on other which cannot be justified in any sense. Mind you I am a minority that thinks that Moral philosophy and sociology, can be done on rationaly objective and universal grounds. Without just calling it that. Many people think it is, because its called science. But that the facade.

After natural philosophy took off in the 1600's it became 'commonly' called The Science. It was not till around late 1800's that many other disciplines which couldn't show progress or simply could not be forms of knowledge in a TGB sense tried to apply the objective sense of the scientific method. Upon this attempt these arbirary set disciplines were called Social sciences. But attempts to make it objective in the same sense FAILED!. They never actually were able to become justified in that sense. But they continued with the name and some non-falsifiable method, where they just assume complex and often incredibly vaguely defined, explanations. They just assume the theory true and then make the study, to support it. If the experiement contradicts the theory they just consider it error, and fidle with the definition and operative definitions to fit. If that doesn't work they just make now experimet to eventually get what they already assumed. They ignored Karl Poppers criteria of falsification. They can't be wrong. (not all the social science are like this.) It's like a psuedo-science to confirm the ideology.

That is just like making and Islamic science which can;t be wrong and can only support The Muslim Religion, when the theories are contradicted aka proven false in any other form a rational sense what so ever they say its only error. But it that means its FALSE. I am not againt, sociology, nor am I against God, But I am against, a completly giving up on a rational approach(not simply adding the name "rational" or the name "objective") by an actual demarcatable critieria. That we could actually know. After the scientificatoin failed. The main argument to keep it going was that there is no absolute truth of science therefore its just another science.(in the very same obejctive sense) WTF? Are you kidding me?

I expect some backlash but I would be intrested about thoughts about this. (I am not claiming all of it is completely irrational or non-objective. But a huge majority) And some theories do happen to actually reflect the world but you can barly tell if its the method, or just a good speculation. It wouldn't matter they would just make another experiment untill it agrees.

I am curious if anybody cares about these things, I know am probably alone on this. I feel what it must to have been like being an Athiest in the 1600's in regards to modern times. If anybody has anything positive creative critism of positive questions only. If not well its something to think about. Cheers!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2012 2:20:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: tired bad spelling. sorry.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL