Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Critical Thinking about Science P2

The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 12:57:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Some more on the philosophy of science By Popper.

"Science must formulate theories in as clear cut a way as possible, so as to expose them most unambiguously to refutation. And at a methological level we should never systematically evade refutation by continually reformulating either our theory or our evidence in order to keep the two in accord. This is what many [Ideologist] do and many psychoanalysts. . (he has Marxist here because it was the popular ideology at the time view at the time.)

Thus they are substituting dogmatism for science while claiming to be scientific. A scientific theory is not one that explains everything that can possibly happen: on the contrary, it rulesout most of what could possibly happenm and is therefore itself rules out what happens. So a genuinely scientific theory places itself at risk.. (HINT hint! <(8J) ) Thus the critieria of science is falsification. That is if all possible state of affairs fit in with a theory then no actual, state of affairs, no observations, no experimental results, can be claimed as supporting evidence for it. (ahem God sorry cough cough) That is there is no observable/experience difference between it being true or false. Therefore it conveys not scientific information. Only if some imaginable obsevation can refute it is testable. and only if it is testable it is Scientific. Karl Popper. The logic of scientific Discovery
"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
7/27/2012 9:22:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Edit 1.1
Some more on the philosophy of science By Popper.


"Science must formulate theories in as clear cut a way as possible, so as to expose them most unambiguously to refutation. And at a methological level we should never systematically evade refutation by continually reformulating either our theory or our evidence in order to keep the two in accord. This is what many [Ideologist] do and many psychoanalysts. . (he has Marxist here because it was the popular ideology at the time.)

Thus they are substituting dogmatism for science while claiming to be scientific. A scientific theory is not one that explains everything that can possibly happen: on the contrary, it rules out most of what could possibly happen and is therefore itself ruled out if what it rules out happened. So a genuinely scientific theory places itself at risk.. (HINT hint! <(8J) ) Thus the critieria of science is falsification. That is if all possible state of affairs fit in with a theory then no actual, state of affairs, no observations, no experimental results, can be claimed as supporting evidence for it. (ahem God sorry cough cough) That is there is no observable/experience difference between it being true or false. Therefore it conveys not scientific information. Only if some imaginable obsevation can refute it is testable. and only if it is testable it is Scientific. Karl Popper. The logic of scientific Discovery
"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
8/3/2012 6:55:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Fundemental concepts of science. YOU MUST KNOW>
"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
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 10:33:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Popper is wrong, of course. Scientific theories work within domains. When Einstein discovered that Newtonian mechanics was incomplete, he also discovered the domain in which Newtonian mechanics works. Scientific theories are modified all the time as we discover where they work and where they don't. If you want to philosophize, I suppose one could argue the old theory is abandoned and a replacement theory is formed instead. In practice, if science didn't reflect new data, it would be religion, not science.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 10:54:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 10:33:47 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Popper is wrong, of course.

The Fool: Firstly, thats not even a possible claim base on the information. Its pretty consesus in natural science.

Scientific theories work within domains.

The Fool: No they don't there is no Special knowledge, without using the work 'knowledge' in a way which you are no longer communication. Natural Science was COMMONLY(lower class) as THe science. Its wasn't till 200 years later, that the Humanities which they were called by that time. Wanted to have the same type of progress and respect as The Science. They tried hard to apply the same principles And Called an arbratarly set of displined as the Social Science. However they project FAILED!! After a long time with no progress in a largly Subjectivist atmospher. They decided to claim that they were knowledge of SPECIAL Domains. There is LOGIC behind it what so every. The is rational behind Speacial domain anymore then claming knowledge by DIVINE REVELATOIN!

When Einstein discovered that Newtonian mechanics was incomplete, he also discovered the domain in which Newtonian mechanics works. Scientific theories are modified all the time as we discover where they work and where they don't.

The Fool: This is exactly what Popper based the concept on. Is that Science progress when search for error because its only upon falsification that forces us to adopt the BETTER THEORY. The logic is simple, you can have and infinite affermations but you can never prove it by such verification its kind of like adhering to popularity. But you can disprove the limits of a theory 100%. And therefore a body of knowledge can be demarcated. IF you run test which can never tell the difference if its true or not. Then can never know if its knowledge or not. That is many of methods in social sciences can never be proven wrong.

In practice, if science didn't reflect new data, it would be religion, not science.

The Fool: Obviously it went completly over your head. Every science presuppose a philosophy> It didnt just pop up!
If you want to philosophize, I suppose one could argue the old theory is abandoned and a replacement theory is formed instead.

The Fool: But to know if its needs to be replace or what alterations need to be made you need to find out where it doesn't work. He is arguing for Eistiein in the fact that his theories are nice and out in the open, so if there is a flaw we could know about it. While most of the social science don;t. What doest show significanse doesn't get PUBLISH. And so the definition and operation definition Get TWEEKED AND MANIPLATED UNTIL IT LOOKS LIKE IT FITs. But the entire thing which was desire to be known. Was never known but a completly difference concept with the LABEL> Thats a Religious science. They could never fail to be wrong Because they JUST KEEP REINTERPRETING what they meant the last time the experiment failed to support the Ideology. Lasly, most of the definition are vague and metaphyical that there is not possible way to have any logical relation to there operational definition. ITS FAKE!> (A large portion of it. )
"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
Brain_crazy
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 11:42:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 10:54:29 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/7/2012 10:33:47 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Popper is wrong, of course.

The Fool: Firstly, thats not even a possible claim base on the information. Its pretty consesus in natural science.

Scientific theories work within domains.

The Fool: No they don't there is no Special knowledge, without using the work 'knowledge' in a way which you are no longer communication. Natural Science was COMMONLY(lower class) as THe science. Its wasn't till 200 years later, that the Humanities which they were called by that time. Wanted to have the same type of progress and respect as The Science. They tried hard to apply the same principles And Called an arbratarly set of displined as the Social Science. However they project FAILED!! After a long time with no progress in a largly Subjectivist atmospher. They decided to claim that they were knowledge of SPECIAL Domains. There is LOGIC behind it what so every. The is rational behind Speacial domain anymore then claming knowledge by DIVINE REVELATOIN!


I agree in some respects with your critique of social science. Many sociologists for instance seem more concerned with propagating their ideology than searching for truth (ie. lack of use of the scientific method and it's most potent tool the experiment) However, psychology has come a long way, particularly in the sub-fields concerning biological domains. Psychologists in general have become dedicated to the use of the scientific method and applying it to behavior. Cognitive neuroscience specifically is moving psychology into the big leagues.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 12:10:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Fool, So, you are saying there is no possibility "we should never systematically evade refutation by continually reformulating either our theory or our evidence in order to keep the two in accord." I don't know what it means to "reformulate evidence" other than to lie about what the evidence is, so that part is true. But that leaves the part about "Scientific theories should never be reformulated to evade refutation." When a theory is reformulated, there is no way to do it other than to abandon the old theory and replace it with a new one. So if theories are never reformulated, there are no new ones.

Some of "social science" is science, some is not. That's another matter.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 12:13:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 11:42:30 PM, Brain_crazy wrote:
At 8/7/2012 10:54:29 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/7/2012 10:33:47 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Popper is wrong, of course.

The Fool: Firstly, thats not even a possible claim base on the information. Its pretty consesus in natural science.

Scientific theories work within domains.

The Fool: No they don't there is no Special knowledge, without using the work 'knowledge' in a way which you are no longer communication. Natural Science was COMMONLY(lower class) as THe science. Its wasn't till 200 years later, that the Humanities which they were called by that time. Wanted to have the same type of progress and respect as The Science. They tried hard to apply the same principles And Called an arbratarly set of displined as the Social Science. However they project FAILED!! After a long time with no progress in a largly Subjectivist atmospher. They decided to claim that they were knowledge of SPECIAL Domains. There is NO LOGIC behind it what so every. The is rational behind Special domain anymore then claming knowledge by DIVINE REVELATOIN!


I agree in some respects with your critique of social science. Many sociologists for instance seem more concerned with propagating their ideology than searching for truth (ie. lack of use of the scientific method and it's most potent tool the experiment) However, psychology has come a long way, particularly in the sub-fields concerning biological domains. Psychologists in general have become dedicated to the use of the scientific method and applying it to behavior. Cognitive neuroscience specifically is moving psychology into the big leagues.

The Fool: yeah that is seperate now thought. The actual science is now called cognitive science. Which is its own thing. Its neuroscience mixed with cognitive psychology with philosophy of mind.
Mind you I am not saying its all garbage but a huge chunk of it is. And it pressupposed the ideology first. And it can never show it false. So it asks as to polarized the truth of the Ideology in the name of false science.
"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
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 12:13:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 10:33:47 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Popper is wrong, of course. Scientific theories work within domains. When Einstein discovered that Newtonian mechanics was incomplete, he also discovered the domain in which Newtonian mechanics works. Scientific theories are modified all the time as we discover where they work and where they don't. If you want to philosophize, I suppose one could argue the old theory is abandoned and a replacement theory is formed instead. In practice, if science didn't reflect new data, it would be religion, not science.

Newton doesn't actually "work" within a particular domain. It is merely "close enough." General Relativity is still closer, though working through the equations is not worth the added accuracy.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 9:05:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 12:13:35 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:

Newton doesn't actually "work" within a particular domain. It is merely "close enough." General Relativity is still closer, though working through the equations is not worth the added accuracy.

But that's generally true. For example, the laws of aerodynamics "work" assuming the air is not compressed. There is always a minute amount of compression, so the laws are not exactly true. Theories are only verifiable to a finite precision, so we don't ever know if they precisely correct, we only know if they are useful for prediction within a certain domain.

My objections is the notion that science is invalid if theories are changed.
Brain_crazy
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 8:24:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 12:13:24 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/7/2012 11:42:30 PM, Brain_crazy wrote:
At 8/7/2012 10:54:29 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/7/2012 10:33:47 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Popper is wrong, of course.

The Fool: Firstly, thats not even a possible claim base on the information. Its pretty consesus in natural science.

Scientific theories work within domains.

The Fool: No they don't there is no Special knowledge, without using the work 'knowledge' in a way which you are no longer communication. Natural Science was COMMONLY(lower class) as THe science. Its wasn't till 200 years later, that the Humanities which they were called by that time. Wanted to have the same type of progress and respect as The Science. They tried hard to apply the same principles And Called an arbratarly set of displined as the Social Science. However they project FAILED!! After a long time with no progress in a largly Subjectivist atmospher. They decided to claim that they were knowledge of SPECIAL Domains. There is NO LOGIC behind it what so every. The is rational behind Special domain anymore then claming knowledge by DIVINE REVELATOIN!


I agree in some respects with your critique of social science. Many sociologists for instance seem more concerned with propagating their ideology than searching for truth (ie. lack of use of the scientific method and it's most potent tool the experiment) However, psychology has come a long way, particularly in the sub-fields concerning biological domains. Psychologists in general have become dedicated to the use of the scientific method and applying it to behavior. Cognitive neuroscience specifically is moving psychology into the big leagues.

The Fool: yeah that is seperate now thought. The actual science is now called cognitive science. Which is its own thing. Its neuroscience mixed with cognitive psychology with philosophy of mind.
Mind you I am not saying its all garbage but a huge chunk of it is. And it pressupposed the ideology first. And it can never show it false. So it asks as to polarized the truth of the Ideology in the name of false science.

My point though is that idealogical stances -such as Freudians(who's work mostly relied on case studies)- are on there way out within psychology. They're a dying breed. The research intensive sub-fields like cognitive neuroscience are also garnishing greater influence over the less research intensive sub-fields -like educational psychology-.