Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Deluded View of Science

SubterFugitive
Posts: 255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 9:05:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I've noticed on here that most folks just have such a warped and fanciful view of science (excuse me, Science) that I think it warrants discussion.

First off, as I've argued in the past there is no "general account" of science, no demarcation of method and the focus is arbitrary. And there's nothing wrong with that in the least bit, in fact it's good for our search for truth that science is like this.

More importantly there's also the social aspects of science to consider, we"ve all learned about the scientific method as one method (that's BS too, there's not one method but an ever changing methodology). However there is also an institutionalized process by which scientists fund their research, run experiments or studies, and discuss, analyze, and share the results. With the current process incentivizing deceptive practices, we"d say it"s time to make some improvements: ""publish or parish" is the rule of thumb for researchers today, this is bad. More noise, more money, means more BS.

http://priceonomics.com...
SubterFugitive
Posts: 255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 9:09:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'd also submit that subjective Bayesianism for the historical sciences and new experimentalism for the empirical sciences are the two best accounts for method, though it's not exhaustive. This means that simplistic views of "falsificationism" are dropped for the more sophisticated and correct view of ad hocness. I'll debate this with anyone interested.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 9:30:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 9:05:22 PM, SubterFugitive wrote:
I've noticed on here that most folks just have such a warped and fanciful view of science (excuse me, Science) that I think it warrants discussion.

'Science' isn't a proper noun, so you don't capitalize it.

First off, as I've argued in the past there is no "general account" of science, no demarcation of method and the focus is arbitrary. And there's nothing wrong with that in the least bit, in fact it's good for our search for truth that science is like this.

What do you mean by a "general account" or a "demarcation of method"?

More importantly there's also the social aspects of science to consider, we"ve all learned about the scientific method as one method (that's BS too, there's not one method but an ever changing methodology).

It's not all that much changing. The scientific method is more-or-less static.

However there is also an institutionalized process by which scientists fund their research, run experiments or studies, and discuss, analyze, and share the results.

Which is a complete b**ch to do, since it involves research grants that may, or may not be granted.

With the current process incentivizing deceptive practices, we"d say it"s time to make some improvements: ""publish or parish" is the rule of thumb for researchers today, this is bad. More noise, more money, means more BS.

It's not bad. It forces scientific advancement. I believe you might want to look into what is known as the "tenure".

http://priceonomics.com...

That was the Imperial College of London. Most universities ask for only one or two studies or scholarly articles per year.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
SubterFugitive
Posts: 255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 10:00:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 9:30:52 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/12/2013 9:05:22 PM, SubterFugitive wrote:
I've noticed on here that most folks just have such a warped and fanciful view of science (excuse me, Science) that I think it warrants discussion.

'Science' isn't a proper noun, so you don't capitalize it.

Thought it was obvious I was being Pickwickian, guess not.


First off, as I've argued in the past there is no "general account" of science, no demarcation of method and the focus is arbitrary. And there's nothing wrong with that in the least bit, in fact it's good for our search for truth that science is like this.

What do you mean by a "general account" or a "demarcation of method"?

eg, falsificationism or positivism would be a general account of science. "Falsificationism holds for all things which is science" ...


More importantly there's also the social aspects of science to consider, we"ve all learned about the scientific method as one method (that's BS too, there's not one method but an ever changing methodology).

It's not all that much changing. The scientific method is more-or-less static.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA debate me on that?

With the current process incentivizing deceptive practices, we"d say it"s time to make some improvements: ""publish or parish" is the rule of thumb for researchers today, this is bad. More noise, more money, means more BS.

It's not bad. It forces scientific advancement. I believe you might want to look into what is known as the "tenure".

I'm not ignorant on these matters you know, I do geophysics research. And it's bad as it stands for science, you get tenure by continuously publishing "interesting" and "novel" papers.. not "correct" papers all to much.


http://priceonomics.com...

That was the Imperial College of London. Most universities ask for only one or two studies or scholarly articles per year.

The point isn't how many articles per year ought to be published, the point is about open science vs closed.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 10:40:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 10:00:22 PM, SubterFugitive wrote:
At 12/12/2013 9:30:52 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/12/2013 9:05:22 PM, SubterFugitive wrote:
I've noticed on here that most folks just have such a warped and fanciful view of science (excuse me, Science) that I think it warrants discussion.

'Science' isn't a proper noun, so you don't capitalize it.

Thought it was obvious I was being Pickwickian, guess not.

I'm not familiar with that term.


First off, as I've argued in the past there is no "general account" of science, no demarcation of method and the focus is arbitrary. And there's nothing wrong with that in the least bit, in fact it's good for our search for truth that science is like this.

What do you mean by a "general account" or a "demarcation of method"?

eg, falsificationism or positivism would be a general account of science. "Falsificationism holds for all things which is science" ...


More importantly there's also the social aspects of science to consider, we"ve all learned about the scientific method as one method (that's BS too, there's not one method but an ever changing methodology).

It's not all that much changing. The scientific method is more-or-less static.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA debate me on that?

Maybe, although I doubt there would be any statistics to back the claims up. I would more-or-less just point to what I was taught, and how scholarly articles are written, which are more-or-less written by how I leaned in school.


With the current process incentivizing deceptive practices, we"d say it"s time to make some improvements: ""publish or parish" is the rule of thumb for researchers today, this is bad. More noise, more money, means more BS.

It's not bad. It forces scientific advancement. I believe you might want to look into what is known as the "tenure".

I'm not ignorant on these matters you know, I do geophysics research. And it's bad as it stands for science, you get tenure by continuously publishing "interesting" and "novel" papers.. not "correct" papers all to much.

Well, you also have a reputation to hold, and publishing correct articles means your reputation increases, which could mean a better pay, and a better position in a university. You don't get those high level chair positions in Ivy league universities spewing Creationism.


http://priceonomics.com...

That was the Imperial College of London. Most universities ask for only one or two studies or scholarly articles per year.

The point isn't how many articles per year ought to be published, the point is about open science vs closed.

What do you mean by "open" or "closed" science?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 8:03:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 9:05:22 PM, SubterFugitive wrote:
I've noticed on here that most folks just have such a warped and fanciful view of science (excuse me, Science) that I think it warrants discussion.

First off, as I've argued in the past there is no "general account" of science, no demarcation of method and the focus is arbitrary. And there's nothing wrong with that in the least bit, in fact it's good for our search for truth that science is like this.

More importantly there's also the social aspects of science to consider, we"ve all learned about the scientific method as one method (that's BS too, there's not one method but an ever changing methodology). However there is also an institutionalized process by which scientists fund their research, run experiments or studies, and discuss, analyze, and share the results. With the current process incentivizing deceptive practices, we"d say it"s time to make some improvements: ""publish or parish" is the rule of thumb for researchers today, this is bad. More noise, more money, means more BS.

http://priceonomics.com...

As I sit here and type over on my consumer electronic device, which is communicating to a server somewhere over a collection of cables, fibre optics, and Wireless LAN radio frequency connections, I decided to take a break and look down.

I am drinking pureified water made from plastic bottles while my phones are charging from a power socket supplied by oil, gas, coal, nuclear and renewable energy sources. I am about to go eat a meal which I would assume is mainly created from plants that have been fertilized using the haber or similar process (which incidently feeds 40% of the worlds population). I am wearing semi-synthetic clothing; and I'm pretty sure that the headache I have right now is due to being hungover, but know that I could get it checked out in a modern hospital with a CT scan, PET scan, and treated with various pharmaceutical products should it be a little bit more serious.

I'm in Kansas at the moment, but will be flying back to the UK shortly on a translatlantic flight on a Boeing 777, which is fairly modern aircraft with all the relevant testing and features. Yesterday I watched a program about the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, skylab and shuttle programs, with all the things that went into them, and the day before I watched a program on some of the space probes we have sent to other planets.

There is a smoke alarm in my room which is most likely to use elemental Americium 141 to detect the smoke, which would pressumabley have come from some sort of breed reactor. The key card to my hotel is managed by a magnetic strip.

While I can imagine that there are a number of ways science can be improved, especially the funding of it I can quite happily point out that the inspiration, science, and theoretical physics behind all of the above did not come from any religious texts. It came from the broad overarching mechanism of scientific investigation leading to an increase and persistent growth of modern scientific knowledge.

Science works.
SubterFugitive
Posts: 255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 10:58:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 8:03:14 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/12/2013 9:05:22 PM, SubterFugitive wrote:
I've noticed on here that most folks just have such a warped and fanciful view of science (excuse me, Science) that I think it warrants discussion.

First off, as I've argued in the past there is no "general account" of science, no demarcation of method and the focus is arbitrary. And there's nothing wrong with that in the least bit, in fact it's good for our search for truth that science is like this.

More importantly there's also the social aspects of science to consider, we've all learned about the scientific method as one method (that's BS too, there's not one method but an ever changing methodology). However there is also an institutionalized process by which scientists fund their research, run experiments or studies, and discuss, analyze, and share the results. With the current process incentivizing deceptive practices, we"d say it"s time to make some improvements: ""publish or parish" is the rule of thumb for researchers today, this is bad. More noise, more money, means more BS.


http://priceonomics.com...

As I sit here and type over on my consumer electronic device, which is communicating to a server somewhere over a collection of cables, fibre optics, and Wireless LAN radio frequency connections, I decided to take a break and look down.

I am drinking pureified water made from plastic bottles while my phones are charging from a power socket supplied by oil, gas, coal, nuclear and renewable energy sources. I am about to go eat a meal which I would assume is mainly created from plants that have been fertilized using the haber or similar process (which incidently feeds 40% of the worlds population). I am wearing semi-synthetic clothing; and I'm pretty sure that the headache I have right now is due to being hungover, but know that I could get it checked out in a modern hospital with a CT scan, PET scan, and treated with various pharmaceutical products should it be a little bit more serious.

I'm in Kansas at the moment, but will be flying back to the UK shortly on a translatlantic flight on a Boeing 777, which is fairly modern aircraft with all the relevant testing and features. Yesterday I watched a program about the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, skylab and shuttle programs, with all the things that went into them, and the day before I watched a program on some of the space probes we have sent to other planets.

There is a smoke alarm in my room which is most likely to use elemental Americium 141 to detect the smoke, which would pressumabley have come from some sort of breed reactor. The key card to my hotel is managed by a magnetic strip.


While I can imagine that there are a number of ways science can be improved, especially the funding of it I can quite happily point out that the inspiration, science, and theoretical physics behind all of the above did not come from any religious texts. It came from the broad overarching mechanism of scientific investigation leading to an increase and persistent growth of modern scientific knowledge.

Science works.

Mostly irrelevant to what I'm saying, the issue isn't whether or not science has, in the past, been useful for making our lives more convenient and livable. That's not at all being questioned.

What's at issue is our view of science; how the social aspect of science, its changing methodology and how it relates to other fields of inquiry is often warped.

Case in point,

"...science, and theoretical physics behind all of the above did not come from any religious texts. It came from the broad overarching mechanism of scientific investigation leading to an increase and persistent growth of modern scientific knowledge."

... this just smacks of an epistemology that's somehow "better" than what's found in religion, and this goes largely unchallenged. But if I have a metal detector which only detects silver, should I be surprised that I don't find gold?

Science's focus is arbitrarily set on the natural world, so we can't say that science is the be all end all of any worldview.

It can make us nice toasters and cool jets, but there's more to life than what science can tell us, I think we need to come to terms with that.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 12:14:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 10:58:56 AM, SubterFugitive wrote:
... this just smacks of an epistemology that's somehow "better" than what's found in religion, and this goes largely unchallenged. But if I have a metal detector which only detects silver, should I be surprised that I don't find gold?

Yeah well, to extend your analogy further, it's only the religious who claim that you can find something not metal with the metal detector, and we've found no evidence of being the case. And please enlighten us about what's "found" in religion that somehow trumps what science has done for us. Because as far I can see, science has done far more to improve our standard of living than religion has, especially if the long period in history of religious bodies controlling scientific research and banning any blasphemous research is anything to go by (see how science was hindered by Christianity here: http://www.huppi.com... ).

Science's focus is arbitrarily set on the natural world, so we can't say that science is the be all end all of any worldview.

No, but clearly it provides productive use than religion. If you had a disease, would you go to your hospital or your church to find a cure?

It can make us nice toasters and cool jets, but there's more to life than what science can tell us, I think we need to come to terms with that.

Well I disagree, I think nature is awesome enough without the fantasies supernaturalism muddying up the waters. It is the basic goal of religious brainwashing to convince you that it is impossible to have meaning in our lives without religion. That if we aren't a special and beautiful snowflake created by a loving sky-daddy, we mean nothing.

What you don't get is that the entire premise is a crock. You have to look completely outside of this box, (which I understand will be very difficult to do, given a lifetime of Christian instruction) and start from a completely different outlook on the world. Nature exists, all of it is awe-inspiring, I am part of nature for a very brief time, and that is special all on its own. Your problem, and the problem in all religious thinking, is that you think meaning can only be derived from outside nature, and can only be imposed upon our lives from an external (ie. divine) source, and that's psychologically damaging BS.