Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


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: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlineflangenips
Batshitinsanse
 User Gallery


Registered: 01/20/08
Posts: 1,520
Loc: aotearoa Flag
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
The philosophy of science - What is it?
    #9755606 - 02/07/09 04:07 PM (15 years, 1 month ago)

I wasn't going to post a topic here, but now i'm interested in view points on what science actually is.
I posted this over at M&P, http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/9712620/an/0/page/0, questions asked provoked me into debate. I can get too easily sucked in to debate.

However i'm interested in your views here at P&S.
Can anyone provide some strong justification for a narrower view of science?

Unfortunately, or fortunately :shrug:, i have a broad view and can barely contribute more that what i have written there, but i can try to reply. Feel free to pick apart what i've written over at M&P in the link above.
I'm interested in a concise way to arrive at the point that String Theory, M-Theory, and the like are not scientific.

Maybe even more so, i'm interested on your thoughts on mathematics and philosophy being at the core of theoretical science.

There are probably many more questions i can ask, but here are some starters:
Is theoretical science really scientific? guilty until proven innocent?
Is popper right about falsifiability and science?

Heres something to get us started:
Quote:

sci·ence      (sī'əns)  Pronunciation Key
n. 

  1.
        1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
        2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
        3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
  2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
  3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
  4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
  5. Science Christian Science.




Quote:


sci⋅ence
   /ˈsaɪəns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sahy-uhns] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.




--from http://www.dictionary.com


--------------------
All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusions is called a philosopher. - Ambrose Bierce

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinefreeDOOM
Stranger then you
Male


Registered: 07/28/08
Posts: 1,536
Loc: New York, USA
Last seen: 2 years, 2 months
Re: The philosophy of science - What is it? [Re: flangenips]
    #9755621 - 02/07/09 04:10 PM (15 years, 1 month ago)

The reason for the existence of science is to gain more knowledge and understanding in the world around us.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinefreeDOOM
Stranger then you
Male


Registered: 07/28/08
Posts: 1,536
Loc: New York, USA
Last seen: 2 years, 2 months
Re: The philosophy of science - What is it? [Re: freeDOOM]
    #9755631 - 02/07/09 04:11 PM (15 years, 1 month ago)

That's pretty much a definition of it, but I believe it doubles as it's philosophy.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: The philosophy of science - What is it? [Re: flangenips]
    #9756463 - 02/07/09 07:10 PM (15 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

flangenips said:
Is theoretical science really scientific? guilty until proven innocent?
Is popper right about falsifiability and science?




Yes and yes.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: The philosophy of science - What is it? [Re: deCypher]
    #9756626 - 02/07/09 07:47 PM (15 years, 1 month ago)

ha, that clears it up

Im not sure why you (o.p.) are singling out 'theoretical' science.  It takes theory and experiment combined to do science. Also, yea youre right, science and philosophy are related, science is a subset of philosophy (after all, the scientists of old were called 'natural philosophers).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: The philosophy of science - What is it? [Re: flangenips]
    #9756672 - 02/07/09 07:55 PM (15 years, 1 month ago)

Is theoretical science really scientific? guilty until proven innocent?
Is popper right about falsifiability and science?


Einstein made major scientific breakthroughs that people before his time may have not considered to be scientific. Theoretical science, to me anyways, seems to be a modern branch of science that is taking a huge step forward in the study of physics, similarly to how Einstein did in his time.

"Guilty until proven innocent" is how science works: A theory is formulated, and scientists consequently work hard on trying to prove that the theory is false (i.e., they try to maintain its "guilt"). If they can't or otherwise fail to do so, then the theory is accepted as a viable one (i.e., it is proven to be innocent).

Forgive me, but who is "popper", and, in a nutshell, what did he say about falsifiability and science?


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledaytripper23
?
Male

Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc: Flag
Re: The philosophy of science - What is it? [Re: Poid]
    #9756759 - 02/07/09 08:13 PM (15 years, 1 month ago)

Materialism

Its in the language:

Take for instance evidence - not merely evident, apparent, or ostensible; but what is referred to in science, is physically, and therefore consensually evident. This is substance, or substantiation, which again calls attention to physicality as the ideal. Substance was Baruch Spinoza's God.

Clearly though, science is expanding from this habitation; you might call attention to modern physics.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineflangenips
Batshitinsanse
 User Gallery


Registered: 01/20/08
Posts: 1,520
Loc: aotearoa Flag
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
Re: The philosophy of science - What is it? [Re: deCypher]
    #9756807 - 02/07/09 08:23 PM (15 years, 1 month ago)

I find it interesting that some still label theories unscientific on grounds of unfalsifiability, even though it seems to me that these theories have not yet been proven unfalsifiable.

There are those here who assert that, for instance, string theory is not science. But i feel it is a case of counting your chickens before they hatch. I'm not saying they're verificationists or saying that they believe its unsupportable. But why base what is "science", in terms of gaining an understanding and knowledge, on what seems to me like the 'current limitations' of our experience?

how can some be so confident that what is currently scientific will not be turned on head and exposed for short-comings in the future? is this not a self-inherent paradox for the falsificationists?

Qubit: I don't mean to single out theoretical science, it is just a means for an example.


--------------------
All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusions is called a philosopher. - Ambrose Bierce

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineflangenips
Batshitinsanse
 User Gallery


Registered: 01/20/08
Posts: 1,520
Loc: aotearoa Flag
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
Re: The philosophy of science - What is it? [Re: Poid]
    #9756820 - 02/07/09 08:25 PM (15 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
Forgive me, but who is "popper", and, in a nutshell, what did he say about falsifiability and science?




I guess you could say the celebrity of advocating falsification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability


--------------------
All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusions is called a philosopher. - Ambrose Bierce

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: The philosophy of science - What is it? [Re: flangenips]
    #9757425 - 02/07/09 09:32 PM (15 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

flangenips said:
Quote:

Poid said:
Forgive me, but who is "popper", and, in a nutshell, what did he say about falsifiability and science?




I guess you could say the celebrity of advocating falsification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability




Then why didn't you post this link instead:

Karl Popper - Wikipedia

:shrug:


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: The philosophy of science - What is it? [Re: flangenips]
    #9757521 - 02/07/09 09:56 PM (15 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

flangenips said:
I find it interesting that some still label theories unscientific on grounds of unfalsifiability, even though it seems to me that these theories have not yet been proven unfalsifiable.





It doesnt have to be unfalsifiable forever to not be science, it only need be unfalsifiable now.  For now string theory is not science, in the future if we discover some huge natural collider in the cosmos to observe, then maybe it would be science.  Say somebody a thousand years ago said that time dilates when you travel as in relativity; but back then he had absolutely no evidence or way to verify/falsify the claim.  Then he would not be practicing science - even though he was right! 


Quote:

flangenips said:
how can some be so confident that what is currently scientific will not be turned on head and exposed for short-comings in the future? is this not a self-inherent paradox for the falsificationists?





No, its not a paradox - nor is it a sign of overconfidence in our current theories.  If there is evidence to overturn our current theories, then they will be over turned - that is science.  If someone attempts to overturn (or supplement) current theories without evidence then that is not science.

I dont see where your confusion is... 
Do you claim that science can be practiced without observational evidence?  Then you are redefining science. 
Do you agree that for science to be practiced, there must be some appeal to evidence?  If so then you agree with what we are all saying.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineflangenips
Batshitinsanse
 User Gallery


Registered: 01/20/08
Posts: 1,520
Loc: aotearoa Flag
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
Re: The philosophy of science - What is it? [Re: Poid]
    #9757900 - 02/07/09 11:03 PM (15 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

flangenips said:
Quote:

Poid said:
Forgive me, but who is "popper", and, in a nutshell, what did he say about falsifiability and science?




I guess you could say the celebrity of advocating falsification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability




Then why didn't you post this link instead:

Karl Popper - Wikipedia

:shrug:




Because that link does not relate directly to falsifiability. And the link i provided gives the best nutshell of his falsifiability, the smaller paragraphs are nicer on the eyes :smile:


--------------------
All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusions is called a philosopher. - Ambrose Bierce

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: The philosophy of science - What is it? [Re: flangenips]
    #9758098 - 02/07/09 11:44 PM (15 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

flangenips said:
Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

flangenips said:
Quote:

Poid said:
Forgive me, but who is "popper", and, in a nutshell, what did he say about falsifiability and science?




I guess you could say the celebrity of advocating falsification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability




Then why didn't you post this link instead:

Karl Popper - Wikipedia

:shrug:




Because that link does not relate directly to falsifiability. And the link i provided gives the best nutshell of his falsifiability, the smaller paragraphs are nicer on the eyes :smile:




But I couldn't give less of a :glittershitz: about something I already know, I just wanted to know things about this  :potleaf: ter fellow....:tongue:


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: The philosophy of science - What is it? [Re: Poid]
    #9758109 - 02/07/09 11:46 PM (15 years, 1 month ago)

Whoops :foreheadslap:, it was Popper, not  :potleaf:ter. My mistake.


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineflangenips
Batshitinsanse
 User Gallery


Registered: 01/20/08
Posts: 1,520
Loc: aotearoa Flag
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
Re: The philosophy of science - What is it? [Re: DieCommie]
    #9758190 - 02/08/09 12:05 AM (15 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Qubit said:
No, its not a paradox - nor is it a sign of overconfidence in our current theories.  If there is evidence to overturn our current theories, then they will be over turned - that is science.  If someone attempts to overturn (or supplement) current theories without evidence then that is not science.

I dont see where your confusion is... 
Do you claim that science can be practiced without observational evidence?  Then you are redefining science. 
Do you agree that for science to be practiced, there must be some appeal to evidence?  If so then you agree with what we are all saying.





Thanks for the reply, it has cleared a few things up.
Nah i don't claim those things. My point was on the definition of science based on weak justification upon grounds of falsificationism. I think i got distracted from that point.
I do get now why you don't consider string theory science. My views are changing, and this is good, communication seems to be succeeding here for once.

I guess i lost you when you said: (in the M&P thread)
Quote:

String "theory" isnt science, its mathematics and philosophy.  Why do you think Witten won the fields medal instead of the nobel prize?  Because they dont offer a nobel prize in mathematics.



I may have assumed that you meant mathematics isn't science.



To reiterate:

1.Say one forms a hypothesis without evidence, and develops the experiment/condition to produce that evidence but has not carried it out yet. Physicists probably do this all the time, its alot like philosophy in that sense. So what you're saying is that this is not science?

2.Say 100 years later we have the technology, and the hypothesis is consistent with the evidence shown from that experiment or a refined version of it. So now its science right?

3.Then 30 years later we find either the experiment is flawed or our analysis of the evidence was incomplete/wrong. This seems possible, philosophically speaking, of what is considered scientific truths today. Time to develop the theory further. So now its not science anymore?

k, that makes sense now, its sub-process, a label for the result of step 2 confirming step 1. A piece that may begin, and may end at step two. but step three (if it occurs) overrides it so its 'no longer science'

I still feel there is a paradox of language there somewhere.

If a theory is not science until its consistent with evidence, but then we find out the experiment/evidence was flawed then it is no longer science... but really it never was science, because we messed up the experiment/analysis. We just didn't know what we found then wasn't science, even though we labelled it so.
Is this at all making any logical sense?

On those grounds, i think it is still a flawed term.


--------------------
All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusions is called a philosopher. - Ambrose Bierce

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: The philosophy of science - What is it? [Re: flangenips]
    #9758268 - 02/08/09 12:23 AM (15 years, 1 month ago)

On those grounds, i think it is still a flawed term.

You think what's a flawed term for what?


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineflangenips
Batshitinsanse
 User Gallery


Registered: 01/20/08
Posts: 1,520
Loc: aotearoa Flag
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
Re: The philosophy of science - What is it? [Re: Poid]
    #9758282 - 02/08/09 12:26 AM (15 years, 1 month ago)

Whats the beef man? I answered your question, you found out the rest for yourself.


Quote:

Poid said:
Forgive me, but who is "popper"




I Said: I guess you could say the celebrity of advocating falsification - relevant enough information, you want more use :google: or wiki search, which you must have done.

Quote:

...and, in a nutshell, what did he say about falsifiability and science?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
at the top:
Some philosophers and scientists, most notably Karl Popper, have asserted that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is scientific only if it is falsifiable.
Read down that link to find the elaboration.


Quote:

But I couldn't give less of a :glittershitz: about something I already know, I just wanted to know things about this  :potleaf: ter fellow....:tongue:



Then make your question specific and ask for his Bio :P
If you already know about falsification, and have read into it, I assume that you should know about Popper.




p.s To all in the thread, i suggest reading the criticisms at the bottom of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability




and to add from my earlier post: and this is a maybe...
Science is not necessarily truth because it intrinsically defines itself this way. So don't believe it to be so.


--------------------
All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusions is called a philosopher. - Ambrose Bierce

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: The philosophy of science - What is it? [Re: flangenips]
    #9758290 - 02/08/09 12:28 AM (15 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

flangenips said:
Science is not necessarily truth because it intrinsically defines itself this way. So don't believe it to be so.




Huh?  Science is a methodology for finding truth, not truth itself.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineflangenips
Batshitinsanse
 User Gallery


Registered: 01/20/08
Posts: 1,520
Loc: aotearoa Flag
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
Re: The philosophy of science - What is it? [Re: Poid]
    #9758307 - 02/08/09 12:32 AM (15 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
On those grounds, i think it is still a flawed term.

You think what's a flawed term for what?




Science is a flawed term. In that its use, in that general sense, and the falsificationists sense, is flawed because of the linguistic paradox of the possibility of using it without knowing that you've used it for something that it is not.


--------------------
All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusions is called a philosopher. - Ambrose Bierce

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineflangenips
Batshitinsanse
 User Gallery


Registered: 01/20/08
Posts: 1,520
Loc: aotearoa Flag
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
Re: The philosophy of science - What is it? [Re: deCypher]
    #9758323 - 02/08/09 12:34 AM (15 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

flangenips said:
Science is not necessarily truth because it intrinsically defines itself this way. So don't believe it to be so.




Huh?  Science is a methodology for finding truth, not truth itself.




Zactly
I don't disagree. I was just saying, for the sake of anyone who follows it like religios truth, that they shouldn't.

edit: oops, i realised my english was crap then It should've meant: Science is not necessarily truth, it intrinsically defines itself as something searching for truth (not truth itself). So don't believe it to be so.


--------------------
All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusions is called a philosopher. - Ambrose Bierce

Edited by flangenips (02/08/09 12:48 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Science as Philosophy Economist 1,229 7 07/27/07 09:46 AM
by Rhizoid
* The Limitations of Science
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Anonymous 6,800 85 01/22/04 12:17 AM
by trippy
* Science isn't philosiphy?!?!?!
( 1 2 all )
gluke bastid 2,984 36 10/11/02 08:32 AM
by Anonymous
* Philosophy: Who needs it?
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 3,882 24 05/27/08 06:51 AM
by zouden
* Science and Pseudoscience
( 1 2 3 all )
Huehuecoyotl 3,579 49 01/25/05 05:30 AM
by oceansize
* Should psychology replace philosophy...
( 1 2 3 4 all )
spud 7,740 67 04/29/07 11:56 PM
by crumblebum
* Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent
( 1 2 3 4 all )
SkorpivoMusterion 8,042 72 02/16/06 07:20 PM
by SkorpivoMusterion
* science, religion, and philosophy Huehuecoyotl 1,624 15 01/28/05 10:05 AM
by Droz

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
3,402 topic views. 1 members, 3 guests and 13 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.033 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 15 queries.