Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck, Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags by Magic Bag

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
To what extent is the Scientific method actually a method?
    #10425601 -

This is my doubt. I may have previously exercised it in certain some of the early evolution threads, because its interesting as it applies to evolution. But it was impossible to not fall in to the epic of the recent evolution/creationism threads.

Hopefully I can later clarify that, as well as my interest in the science of psychology, which is the same concern to me.

But first I'll just ask the question:

How can human hypothesis be ascribed as part of a method in the philosophy of science?


--------------------
Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
  The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
  The frumious Bandersnatch!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: To what extent is the Scientific method actually a method? [Re: daytripper23]
    #10425691 -

because everything has to start from something i believe...
you need to start somewhere, technically nothing is true... and everything is a hypothesis
even though everything is nothing... at least in this perceptual reality we live in


--------------------

:sun:Variety is the spice of life!:sun:



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: To what extent is the Scientific method actually a method? [Re: daytripper23]
    #10425898 -

daytripper23 said:
How can human hypothesis be ascribed as part of a method in the philosophy of science?


Not sure I understand what you mean.  The scientific method is a process by which we make empirical hypotheses and then test these hypotheses with an experiment; how could this not be considered a method?


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: To what extent is the Scientific method actually a method? [Re: daytripper23]
    #10426072 -

Quote:
This is my doubt.


I was going to answer your question, but your doubt caused my computer to stop functioning. :sorry:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: To what extent is the Scientific method actually a method? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10426076 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
This is my doubt.


I was going to answer your question, but your doubt caused my computer to stop functioning. :sorry:


hahaha :crazy2:


--------------------

:sun:Variety is the spice of life!:sun:



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: To what extent is the Scientific method actually a method? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10426139 -

Yea very funny.

Nice strawman, but that's not my doubt.

There obviously no "doubting" utility.


--------------------
Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
  The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
  The frumious Bandersnatch!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: To what extent is the Scientific method actually a method? [Re: daytripper23]
    #10426147 -

he must have a horrible pc if that caused his computer to freeze


--------------------

:sun:Variety is the spice of life!:sun:



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: To what extent is the Scientific method actually a method? [Re: psychedelicSLUG]
    #10426174 -

Is there a reliable Microsoft product that I am unaware of?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: To what extent is the Scientific method actually a method? [Re: daytripper23]
    #10426191 -

haha

I was just thinking,

Laptops are cool, but why do they have to come packaged with "microsoft" tools?


--------------------
Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
  The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
  The frumious Bandersnatch!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: To what extent is the Scientific method actually a method? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10426217 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
Is there a reliable Microsoft product that I am unaware of?


absolutely never... not even in your wildest dreams... or any alternative dimensions of infinite possibilities...


--------------------

:sun:Variety is the spice of life!:sun:



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: To what extent is the Scientific method actually a method? [Re: psychedelicSLUG]
    #10427010 -

Quote:
because everything has to start from something i believe...


This is partly what I am getting at.

As it stands as part of "formal method"  hypothesis, as well as the whole observation "process" in general, it is essentially an unacknowledged meditation. In function it is the auto-hypnosis of man.

This occurs precisely when it is described in the particular circumstances of "being in nature":

I am speaking first of "natural phenomenon", or naturalism. To whatever "integrity" those assumptions of naturalism are, they are only existent a priori, or prior to the study of nature, or causality (hence the acknowledged ism).

In truly Platonic form, granting hypothesis and observation as part of the method is ascribing speculative transcendentalism to the process itself (man's communion with nature, phenomenology). Yet launching the causality in such a "dumb", direct fashion does not prevent a causal development of a particular sort from arising, that body of knowledge called "theory". As such, when our particular dispositions in nature are granted as "process", the surrender of "will" to nature is completed...as if this will has nothing to do with the process itself.

This is not a critique of the subsequent steps, the aspects of science that do meld with the causality of nature. But hypothesis and observation described as part of this same process is only bad faith. This is mixing the speculative, "transcendental" nature of Emerson, with the "method" that could realistically only parallel this as manifested utility.

Less poetically, it is whatever the bias of mind happens to observe, and subsequently wonders about:

Again, there is no inhibition to launching this method, as Orgone describes, but "the life" of this hypothesis is entirely unacknowledged in its ideological nature. Hence the majority will get the bundled microsoft with their "personal" computers, and might believe that this situation is just an inevitable product of science.

As a meditation of no particular integrity, (a contrived, formal method that does not acknowledge experience, but rather IS experience), "observation" is both mundanely and profoundly the bias of a knee-jerk, sensational response to the substantial world we live in. This dull transcendentalism is merely a surrender of the acknowledged bias of what we choose observe, to a normalizing utility.

For instance, evidently nobody can demonstrate a single health benefit to marijuana with scientific rigor. The benefits of a plant that have been recognized and used longer than we can imagine, are always yet "speculative", and needing further study, and only perhaps subject (if this granted).

That is because "evidence" is not merely what is evident. For instance, I could say any hallucination is evident. As such, it is much different the way that evidence for drugs serving the normalizing utility stand. Those trite, knee-jerk aesthetics of the masses, are granted in a matter of years. And that is not even to yet mention the many assumptions of a psychology of science.

No doubt, science works, as far as a person would like to observe.

It is this "observing", and what a person chooses to observe by his circumstances in nature, particularly his circumstances of mind, that should be recognized as extrinsic to this conception of nature, to avoid the dogmatic throne of utility.

Further, what we have makes no sense. Writing this "process" off as "naturalism" is nihilistic of any truly "natural" concept, because the concept is only meaningful in relation to study, or in contrast to the artifice of the human mind. (Or more optimistically, the art)

But before we indulge in any "optimisms", it is necessary to get our terms straight. It seems that the common, reactionary understanding of science, as it now stands, tends to attribute a sentiment to the scientist. But why?

When they acknowledge this art, or this "genius" as admirable; as a virtue, they have apparently left the realm of their science. but what else could this sentiment apply to other than the role as scientist, especially to those idols of the past who to this is all we know. At some point "integrity" is no longer that Cartesian "integrity" of negation or doubt (in face of what precisely?), it becomes something else, just as these idols are not respected as natural configurations and proportions of matter, or bare causal mechanism or process.

No, this is human sentiment, as most cannot help demonstrating.

It is only a matter of simple polite maneuvering to step in and out of the role-playing of science, when such a reactionary sentiment has become thoroughly established. As this manuever becomes more and more a product of conditioning, the auto-hypnosis of the individual will (as opposed to a personal meditation) be complete. These sentimental devotees finally begin to laud the method of these scientists, as if it stands for something more profound than general utility. Thus arises a new predicate, a new rhetoric, where what science describes is deeper, more profound, ethereal, and mystical.

And since, in fact it does demonstrate this in practice, "my doubt" does not stop Orgone Conclusion's computer from working. Whatever that is supposed to mean.

This is the role-play of a scientist. He exists as how or what ever is convenient to his politics, as a "noble scientist", or the scientist who is just doing his job (to which hypothesis and observation stand, as just another phenomenon of nature.)

Thus the crown of thorns is transferred from one idol to the next, with predictable results.

Galileo seems to heartily accept. This is no offense to Galileo, I just understand the way he is idolized in certain circles. But then, who should be offended if I riddled the name of Galileo, as such? Who would strike back in resentment? Remember, this has nothing to do with the movements of planets in the sky, or any principals of reality. Yet I know my bullying will be confused for something much different. This is clearly indicative of some dogma, probably for the laughable theory of geocentrism, right?

Since that is the only way I can be heard, I would argue that the earth is the center of the system. And to anyone who disagrees, well then, of course the sun is the center of the solar system.

Yet all the while, I know its really like Albert Camus said:


"Whether the earth or the sun revolves around the other is a matter of profound indifference."


--------------------
Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
  The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
  The frumious Bandersnatch!

Edited by daytripper23 (06/03/09 12:14 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: To what extent is the Scientific method actually a method? [Re: daytripper23]
    #10427047 -

Quote:
But all the while, I know its like Albert Camus said;

"Whether the earth or the sun revolves around the other is a matter of profound indifference."


In actuality, they revolve around each other.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: To what extent is the Scientific method actually a method? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10429700 -

Right, it would seem that "in actuality" is a particular development of understanding in the realm of human knowledge that is most important.

Its a leap ahead, or perhaps a crucial counterpoint to what I have described so far, but you should know it wasn't my intention to entirely divide hypothethesis and observation, or what I have described as a "meditation" from the subsequent steps of "science", as if there should be no communication (no utility).

As PsychedelicSlug earlier mentioned, there has to be a starting point, and I agree with this. This is fine by me, as long as this is acknowledged as a development of human understanding. In other words, there are more and less dogmatic ways of accomplishing this.

What I have emphasized is an "absurd reasoning". This is best described by that Quote by Albert Camus. Basically, it is pre-relativistic, an "agnosticism" of man's relation to nature.

Wiki: "Absurdism is a philosophy stating that the efforts of humanity to find meaning in the universe ultimately fail (and hence are absurd), because no such meaning exists, at least in relation to the individual. The word "absurd" in this context does not mean "logically impossible", but rather "humanly impossible".[1] Absurdism can be regarded as the ultimate form of agnosticism in the sense that man can never truly "know"."

This is the only truly reasonable basis for human understanding, and is a common disclaimer to science.

It is existence in relationship with its nature, (that is, its own, and its environment). In practical terms it is being as subject to phenomena. The absurdist claim (or rather its way of undermining dogmatic claims) is that while you may "understand" certain frames of existence, you can never truly grasp the phenomenon itself. (that would be Truth or Factuality in its ultimate sense) Given our position, claims the absurdist, it would be like trying to bite your teeth or some similar koan.

This is in ordinary terms the basic rejection of transcendental claims.

The only reason this needs describing, is to undermine relativistic claims, which arise from these transcendental "meditations". For much of history, in a certain relativistic paradigm, the planets and all the stars orbited the earth. Then Came along Galileo, and the heliocentric system was described. The eastern philosophies understood the absurd truth long (or rather, lack of) long before this; that this was relative, that this relativism is dependent on a particular system or paradigm (an existential bias).

So finally, we have the modern understanding that I was trying to work up to, and I cannot tell if you are claiming a third kind of knowledge (as it seems, an immanent, or universal knowledge) It would not be fair to speculate too far to what you mean by "in actuality" but what you describe is important, however you choose to articulate it.

I would say the only claim of "actuality" is absurd, returning to the bare ostensible relationship to phenomenon.

Have you left the grounds of human knowledge? It is important that your claim is understood in terms of what you are implying, what you are explicating, and most importantly, what the process was to make this claim.


--------------------
Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
  The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
  The frumious Bandersnatch!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: To what extent is the Scientific method actually a method? [Re: daytripper23]
    #10430228 -

I agree with many of your concerns.

I think that once we try to explain this so called universal knowledge we fail at it.

science explains patterns nicely when it's using subjects that don't share our same perception.  why must everything relate to how humans can communicate their findings through mathematics, rhetoric, theory, scientific law, etc.?

It is used for many beneficial things like medicine, because it finds the patterns that have repleted throughout medical study and then come to a conclusion of what will happen next.

once randomness is entered into the formula, it becomes more difficult or even impossible to come to a finite conclusion.

human interaction is that randomness.


--------------------
LAGM v.2.024 Grow log

Edited by cyb3rtr0n (05/31/09 02:54 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: To what extent is the Scientific method actually a method? [Re: cyb3rtr0n]
    #10446438 -

Somewhere we have begun to refer to "it" as an objective phenomenon, when it is, and always will be a phenomenon of the objective concern...to us (to the consensus, that is, "phenomenology"!).

I see problem arising when we inject ourselves into the "it", as if nature might encompass its own ideal; as it were, to substantiate the ideal.

While it does, we however, do not. We are not along for this ride, because to us, it may only ever be the phenomenon of objective concern. (a compilation of many relativistic studies) One might reasonably infer that matter manifests mind, but only in a complete nihilism of the underlying sentiment to that expression (in the realm of "we"), the expressed ideal of nature. In other words, while this is fine as a basic inference, it is only bad faith to use this as a rhetorical device.

The current treatment of that substance is not of that sort of nothingness or nihilism. It is a function to transpose the realm of consensus, we (ostensible objective), to it (objective). The we, being the human abstraction process, particularly of hypothethesis and observation, ascribed as a method, to be manifested as the technological, the so called natural.

It is one thing to treat technology as inevitable, or amorally, or without conscience. That, I would say, is that basic inference, "in actuality", as orgone said. That is not a problem in itself. If that is troublesome, it is much more so when it does come with a package of unacknowledged sentiments aesthetics, and morality. Then it is not used only as a cause, but as a "just" cause.

To the aforementioned transcendental relation between man and nature; when that function is thoroughly reduced in scientific fervor, and posited as a value in itself, it becomes a much different concept of nature.  It is now the marriage of man and nature, the entirely pliable realm of synthetics, the nature that is antithetical to synthetic, to which there is no such absolute.

Yet this entire spectrum is asserted as an absolute of nature, and the two respective "natures" are purposefully confused. In a circumstance when progress fits the circumstances of political/economic powers, it is "the process" or the scientist as a role. Then, when progress does not fit these particular circumstances, it is inhibited on a whim of good conscience. This is bad faith in naturalism: A political/economic vascillation of acknowledged and unacknowledged human sentiments, between a transcendent and immanent perspective of nature.

In that, is the possibility for the complete transvaluation of values. To shape and form the value, not in an ordinary manner, but subliminally.

For instance, the best example of this is in our medicine. To progress, cause and effect, and a human desire met: our anxieties are medicated synthetically, but on the assumptions of naturalism.

On the other hand when a more natural substance is effective it is almost always considered dangerous. When it is not so apparently effective, when it requires a degree of aesthetic to feel the benefits (in the realm of human desires) it is pseudoscience. The realm of substance is still precisely where our dogmas lie, whether it is the religious reaction of heathenism, or that sentiment sublimated in science.

Today, human sentiments manifest in their most impulsive forms, as the apparently arbitrary force of technology, which becomes just as much "the phenomenon" as any natural nature. It is the blank slate of nature, the materialistic "something/nothing", and consequently a more subtle something, and something else, and something else  (that subtlety being defined by the unacknowledged sentiments of man)...

...This is not at all to suggest that technology is something that should be simply avoided. Just as I previously said it is not a call to the cradle of God/creation, it is also not the cradle of nature/environment. But its clear that we are already make these distinctions, in the bad faith of science. These are the so called principals, or ethics that separate our science from a master morality such as nazi-science. But instead of discourse on that, we simply have the knee jerk reactions of a slave morality. What I am saying, is that we might as well be straight forward, or in good faith of that, rather than obviating this to the unconscious mechanisms of our base economy.

This naturalism has become Man's default (what is that, but synthetic!)  transcendence in nature.

Can we not recognized the increasing absurdity of our artificial utility growing out of the philosophy of naturalism? This may not have been so apparent, say, before the industrial era, so it is a relatively new concern. Yet it seems that like any protracted phenomenon, this is something that would be easily ignored.

Its all consequent of the same problem in the formal method. We were once "innocent", or rather impotent enough to ascribe the human mind which launches this process (hypothesis and observation), into the process as a natural phenomenon itself. It was all still "basically" natural. Now though, the synthetic distinction is clear as day, and certainly potent. We cannot just describe human to nature relations as default anymore. There is now a clearly recognizable human matrix of technology.

The philosophy needs to change, and its a simply and modest change. Take the hypothesis and observation out of "the process" or "the role", especially in highschool and college education. Let us no longer surrender our will to nature, but acknowledge it as a human meditation, an art, or artifice.

The only sensible distinction is as contrast to nature. In other words, this would be to finally truly recognize the scientist as an artist.



--------------------
Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
  The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
  The frumious Bandersnatch!

Edited by daytripper23 (06/03/09 12:07 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: To what extent is the Scientific method actually a method? [Re: daytripper23]
    #10447003 -

The approach begins, elementary. It evloves at the rate of curiosity. In the end, the result is still perspective. Therefore, it's purpose is only going to serve understanding. And understanding is not always fact. It's an agreement upon perspective.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: To what extent is the Scientific method actually a method? [Re: Fraggin]
    #10447321 -

An additional bit to that is that such an agreement may make itself manifest even under persistent interaction between the members of a community and between the community and its environment. In other words, it sustains an approximative coherence greater than what could be a simple communal delusion, like religion. It gives rise to approximatively coherent open systems.



Quote:
Vivitur ingenio, caetera mortis erunt.


Quote:
Genius lives on, all else is mortal.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck, Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags by Magic Bag

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* UFOs and Scientific Research
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 Swami 13,669 116 11/11/02 09:58 AM
by Xlea321
* The Spiritual Method Veritas 2,247 18 08/08/05 11:12 AM
by LittleBen
* A question for the scientific minds
( 1 2 all )		 Anonymous 3,278 24 01/26/03 05:40 PM
by Murex
* Amazing new scientific discovery!!!
( 1 2 all )		 Silversoul 1,794 22 05/18/05 04:28 AM
by nubious
* Scientific Research Showing Thought's Affect on Matter
( 1 2 all )		 dmtrypr 3,226 32 01/23/05 02:36 AM
by relativexistance
* What's the Scientific Proof for Science?
( 1 2 all )		 dblaney 1,600 26 12/27/05 06:03 AM
by fireworks_god
* The scientific "establishment" Mixomatosis 614 7 01/12/05 01:26 AM
by Zekebomb
* The Nature Of Scientific Progress Twirling 905 7 08/23/04 06:52 AM
by trendal

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,018 topic views. 3 members, 23 guests and 116 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.035 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 16 queries.