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

PlanetSpores.ca
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: Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]
Scientific realism: No!
    #11003480 -

Scientific realism is the thesis that science, as it progresses, attains a closer relationship to truth.  Logical Positivists are most often accredited with holding this view, but in popular culture many people make the assumption that science is becoming more true over time.  However, Carnap and others have framed this debate semantically, and not only brought into question the ability for any sytstem of explanation to become more truthful, but have also attacked the very premises of the question, "Are conclusions of science really real?" 

Carnap describes the action of science as one which produces linguistic frameworks, and to be real scientifically is only to be part of the framework.  The scientific language framework cannot assert its own "realness" within itself.  The decision to accept the scientific framework as real is one made on theoretical knowledge, and is not a yes or no answer.  Instead, the decision to accept the scientific language lies on a gradient from total denial to total acceptance, and if anything, could be said to be a judgment of taste or opinion.  Also, a person who uses the framework simply never needs to make the decision to accept it as really real.  That decision does not affect the use of the framework, and it cannot, for it lies totally outside of the relevancy of its use.

Edited by xFrockx (09/05/09 09:27 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scientific realism: No! [Re: xFrockx]
    #11008213 -

Does science progress towards truth?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scientific realism: No! [Re: xFrockx]
    #11008335 -

xFrockx said:
Does science progress towards truth?


Yes. Technological Singularity.


--------------------
The Great Mycelium (TGMM) is more than you and me, we are all part of One.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scientific realism: No! [Re: explosiveoxygen]
    #11008369 -

So technological singularity is truth?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scientific realism: No! [Re: xFrockx]
    #11008779 -

xFrockx said:
Does science progress towards truth?


If truth is defined pragmatically, then yes.  That is, science discovers useful truths.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scientific realism: No! [Re: Silversoul]
    #11009277 -

Gives us something to do, through the sense of progress some people might be able to feign a sense of faith that something liberating will be found out. But I dunno, I think there is a reason we have terms like ontology and metaphysics... im really not sure what more could be developed - at least what more could be found out that would really impact peoples lives, I mean philosophy already has been din this game for quite some time. We're mostly just twiddling our thumbs gearin up to die when we get lofty anyway :laugh:

If anyone thinks, subconsciously or not, that something outside themselves (like science, religion, work, whatever) can justify their existence - then good for them... they better stay contented and anchored in these assurances lest they despair. But then again who has the courage to really go insane in the face of reflection?

And surely I am not trying to say many good scientists are "lame" like that - just mostly the rabble it seems.


--------------------
Jesus loves you.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scientific realism: No! *DELETED* [Re: xFrockx]
    #11009331 -

Post deleted by DieCommie

Reason for deletion: nm


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scientific realism: No! [Re: DieCommie]
    #11009407 -

DieCommie said:
Science progresses towards minimizing untruth.  Whether or not this process will ultimately converge on truth is unknown, but it has the best track record of all the philosophies man has created.


I think I like the first sentence, but I dunno about the rest... well I guess instead of unknown, I would rather say unlikely. And besides I think we have our scopes set at different things. What is this notion of "ultimate truth" anyway?

A unified theory of physics or something? What is the significance of this for the average man or even the "profound" man? I am curious what people think.

In a utilitarian sense the sciences (BROAD) are doing that utility function quite well. I guess maybe part of the territory is just hoping the future might randomly possess something discoverable and were just hacking away at it, and perhaps that is the healthy virtue of much of those thinkers.

But in an individual sense life is much more intimate than mechanics IMO...


--------------------
Jesus loves you.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scientific realism: No! [Re: DieCommie]
    #11010281 -

"Science progresses towards minimizing untruth. "

by minimizing, do you mean remove from use within the system of science those things which do not correspond with reality? 

If so, what about that is a reflection of some overall truth and not simply a manipulation of scientific knowledge?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scientific realism: No! [Re: xFrockx]
    #11011541 -

It is impossible for science to examine the whole.
Why?
Because science is part of the whole, and it cannot examine itself.

As Silversoul pointed out, the best tool we have for examining science, is practicality.
And IMO, that's a crap measuring stick.
Is there any institution we can NOT assign meaning to? Not make use of?
Everything we've ever come up with, we've made use of. Including religion.

Which came first, the idea of science or the need for the idea of science?


--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scientific realism: No! *DELETED* [Re: Kickle]
    #11011586 -

Post deleted by DieCommie

Reason for deletion: nm


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scientific realism: No! [Re: Kickle]
    #11011597 -

science describes truth but it is only a small aspect of the whole truth... Predictablity within controlled conditions... which doesnt really represent reality as a whole. As well as this, there will always be unknowns with science and thus always more questions.

Science will continue to approach 'truth' in certain bounds. But what is left outside the boundaries of science will become increasingly more important and thus we never really get close to the 'ultimate truth'


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scientific realism: No! [Re: DieCommie]
    #11011645 -

DieCommie said:
I dont think science if for usefulness or practicality at all.  Thats what engineering and medicine are for.  Pure science is not practically applicable or useful at all.  Of course often the distinction between science and engineering/technology is muddled by those that dont practice either of them.



Trying to separate science from its function in society is pointless, IMO.
"Pure science"... Have we ever had that? Not that I can think of. You add a human who is assigning meaning, and you lose any purity that was there.
You add a society which is assigning meaning and the original purity is nothing but a pipe dream if you ask me.


--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scientific realism: No! *DELETED* [Re: Kickle]
    #11011660 -

Post deleted by DieCommie

Reason for deletion: nm


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scientific realism: No! [Re: DieCommie]
    #11011691 -

I've never seen a scientific paper that didn't have an introduction (where did the idea come from) and a discussion (where do I see this going). Perhaps it's because I'm limited in my reading to my particular 'soft' science, but really, who goes into experimentation without some sort of idea on what they're doing? Some expectations?

My professor used to say, "knowledge for knowledges sake," but I've yet to see it practiced as such.
Even going into it with the intention of gaining knowledge for knowledges sake, is assigning a meaning to your work. You are the reason, not knowledge.
You are the one gaining something, not knowledge. And perhaps in very rare cases that something is useless knowledge alone.
I think we try to avoid gaining useless knowledge though. :shrug:


--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scientific realism: No! *DELETED* [Re: DieCommie]
    #11011699 -

Post deleted by DieCommie

Reason for deletion: nm


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scientific realism: No! [Re: DieCommie]
    #11011722 -

Quote:
the scientist doesnt care


Just like the scientist doesn't generalize outside what the available data can safely generalize...

I'm a future scientist, and I greatly care what occurs with my work.
I think Einstein was pretty peeved about the whole Atomic bomb thing, too.


--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scientific realism: No! *DELETED* [Re: Kickle]
    #11011736 -

Post deleted by DieCommie

Reason for deletion: nm


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scientific realism: No! [Re: DieCommie]
    #11011761 -

:shrug:
We're on different ends. You say that science is separate from the scientist. I say that science is entwined with the scientist, while the use of scientific discoveries are entwined with society.

I say that the scientist has something in mind when experimenting (hence Einsteins reaction to a perceived 'misuse' of his work). That they are not somehow able to detach from their ideas, and strive only for knowledge. They have a reason for doing what they do. And that reason is in their work, not separate from it. Science does not drive them, they drive science.

And society gets to say how that knowledge will be used. Hence the development of the atomic bomb.

At both points in the life of a scientific discovery, from the original idea to the creation of something from it, a human, or a group of humans, are entwined with it.


--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scientific realism: No! [Re: Kickle]
    #11011787 -

The food you eat, has science behind it.

If you stop eating food you die.

Therefore, science holds your life in its hands. Give up.

:rockon:


--------------------
if you ever feel lost, just remember, life is not a journey, it is entertainment, all 4 fun...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

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

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* I want to debate a "creation scientist".
( 1 2 3 4 ... 11 12 all )		 Phluck 16,856 232 12/01/04 04:26 PM
by Diploid
* The tie between spirituality and society's progress Fospher 1,184 17 02/13/06 06:21 PM
by Gomp
* UFOs and Scientific Research
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 Swami 13,506 116 11/11/02 09:58 AM
by Xlea321
* Negativity and Realism
( 1 2 all )		 Swami 3,841 31 02/21/04 11:21 AM
by WhiskeyClone
* Why people believe in evolution despite the fact it is a failed theory with no scientific basis?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )		 fivepointer 16,151 135 03/30/07 06:13 AM
by aryah
* A question for the scientific minds
( 1 2 all )		 Anonymous 3,229 24 01/26/03 05:40 PM
by Murex
* The Nature Of Scientific Progress Twirling 894 7 08/23/04 06:52 AM
by trendal
* Jesus wasn't a scientist - the bible in context gluke bastid 1,135 15 05/10/06 12:15 PM
by Silversoul

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
1,322 topic views. 0 members, 37 guests and 6 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 0.01 seconds on 18 queries.