"Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead, it's what the tools and methods of science reveal."

[Polymath257]

If he doesn't the conflict remains, right?

Once again, the scientific process is to modify beliefs based on evidence. If the evidence goes against an agreed upon test, and the person doens't change their beliefs, then they are not doing science. It then becomes a social/political/psychological issue.

Isn't having a system of resolving the conflicts, evidence of existence of the conflicts, please, right?

No matter what area of study you want, people will have disagreements as they learn. That is part of learning. The issue is whether those disagreements can be resolved.

Regards
____________
The history of science is littered with fierce and bitter conflicts. Historians of science have generally shown a strong interest in such personal vendettas.

Absolutely. And this is how science ultimately learns: through strenuous disagreements followed by testing to see who is right or wrong. Often, this process needs to undergo several rounds as the sides shift their beliefs in response to the evidence. Occasionally, it is found that *both* are correct (wave-particle debate about light).

 

[gnostic]

And yes, math is objective in some sense, but not all, because if it was truely independent of brains, then you would have different levels of skill in different humans.

Maths are always human construct logic, mikkel. Maths don’t create itself, any more science can develop a scientific model or theory.

but it is possible to show whether maths are correct or not…as mathematicians could solve or prove the equations.

And it is possible to show which model or hypothesis is correct or incorrect, by testing them, though observations…observations that come from experiments and evidence…as well as from data that are acquired from experiments & evidence.

if independent scientists discovered multiple (and independent) evidence or if multiple independent scientists are able to perform the experiments, and get precisely the same data from observations, then they would either refute the given hypothesis or verify the hypothesis as possible candidate of being scientific.

it is these tests or evidence that will determine if a scientific theory is probable or not, and it is these evidence & experiments that mitigate biases and personal preferences.

Philosophies and religions offer no such tests, and these are often one-sided…they offered no objectivity whatsoever.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Maths are always human construct logic, mikkel. Maths don’t create itself, any more science can develop a scientific model or theory.

but it is possible to show whether maths are correct or not…as mathematicians could solve or prove the equations.

And it is possible to show which model or hypothesis is correct or incorrect, by testing them, though observations…observations that come from experiments and evidence…as well as from data that are acquired from experiments & evidence.

if independent scientists discovered multiple (and independent) evidence or if multiple independent scientists are able to perform the experiments, and get precisely the same data from observations, then they would either refute the given hypothesis or verify the hypothesis as possible candidate of being scientific.

it is these tests or evidence that will determine if a scientific theory is probable or not, and it is these evidence & experiments that mitigate biases and personal preferences.

Philosophies and religions offer no such tests, and these are often one-sided…they offered no objectivity whatsoever.

Well, that is your subjective understand of what science is. Now if you can explain it only using words which have strong external objective referents, I will listen to you.
Biut right now you are using a subjective norm of correct or incorrect. You can't observe those. Those are cogntive norms in your mind.

 

[Pogo]

Well, that is your subjective understand of what science is. Now if you can explain it only using words which have strong external objective referents, I will listen to you.
Biut right now you are using a subjective norm of correct or incorrect. You can't observe those. Those are cogntive norms in your mind.

Science is the set of observations, hypotheses, theories etc that can be communicated between subjective minds with agreement. subjective ideas become scientific when you are able to communicate them to others that then use their subjective minds to evaluate them.
We use this pattern because we have found it useful, not because there may not be some as yet better alternative.
Yes it is ultimately a sort of popularity contest but open ended.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science is the set of observations, hypotheses, theories etc that can be communicated between subjective minds with agreement. subjective ideas become scientific when you are able to communicate them to others that then use their subjective minds to evaluate them.
We use this pattern because we have found it useful, not because there may not be some as yet better alternative.
Yes it is ultimately a sort of popularity contest but open ended.

Well, for what is cultural or human science you can include intersubjectivity and subjective understandings as relevent and not just observations.

 

[Pogo]

Well, for what is cultural or human science you can include intersubjectivity and subjective understandings as relevent and not just observations.

As others have made the point, we are primarily discussing the natural sciences. The social sciences aspire to the same criteria and in fact the much of their work is studying why and how subjective understandings leak into the literature and how to deal with this.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As others have made the point, we are primarily discussing the natural sciences. The social sciences aspire to the same criteria and in fact the much of their work is studying why and how subjective understandings leak into the literature and how to deal with this.

Yeah and you left out the cultural science. I mean I have actually Danish books used to teach people in a profession who to use all 3 kinds of science. And when to use which methodology.
So in effect for another understanding, it is about objective, intersubjective and individually subjective and that there is a sceince for all 3. Where as you claim that there is only one, the objective.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah and you left out the cultural science. I mean I have actually Danish books used to teach people in a profession who to use all 3 kinds of science. And when to use which methodology.
So in effect for another understanding, it is about objective, intersubjective and individually subjective and that there is a sceince for all 3. Where as you claim that there is only one, the objective.

Apparently you are telling us that in Danish you have a third category that I would have considered part of the social sciences.
Do us (you and we) all a favor and explain this separation so that we can communicate on a basis of mutual understanding.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Apparently you are telling us that in Danish you have a third category that I would have considered part of the social sciences.
Do us (you and we) all a favor and explain this separation so that we can communicate on a basis of mutual understanding.

Well, I found this text in Danish. Now the key part is this:
"...
I humaniora søger man derimod primært at forstå og fortolke menneskelivet og vores kulturprodukter. En del humanistisk forskning har dog også (i lighed med samfundsvidenskaberne) et frisættende potentiale.

Ved at undersøge og reflektere over, hvad det vil sige at være menneske, kan humanistisk forskning få os til at erkende skjulte magtrelationer og uhensigtsmæssige handlingsmønstre, og via den erkendelse hjælpe os til at bryde ud og handle anderledes.

En del af de navne, der nævnes i Clasens kronik og kommentarerne til den, så som Freud, Foucault og Lakoff, er præcis eksempler på den form for forskning. ..."

Humanistisk videnskabsteori er noget særligt

De sidste par indlæg har på bloggen har handlet om forskningspolitik. Det er et emne, jeg nok skal komme tilbage til, men denne gang vil jeg tage

videnskab.dk

Now it is late here, so only this:
"
In the humanities, on the other hand, one primarily seeks to understand and interpret human life and our cultural products. However, some humanistic research also (similar to the social sciences) has a liberating potential.

By examining and reflecting on what it means to be human, humanistic research can make us recognize hidden power relations and inappropriate patterns of action, and via that recognition help us to break out and act differently.

Some of the names mentioned in Clasen's chronicle and the comments on it, such as Freud, Foucault and Lakoff, are examples of exactly that kind of research."

In short the text in effect explains something which is cultural science(humanities) and subjective. That is the point.

 

[Pogo]

Well, I found this text in Danish. Now the key part is this:
"...
I humaniora søger man derimod primært at forstå og fortolke menneskelivet og vores kulturprodukter. En del humanistisk forskning har dog også (i lighed med samfundsvidenskaberne) et frisættende potentiale.

Ved at undersøge og reflektere over, hvad det vil sige at være menneske, kan humanistisk forskning få os til at erkende skjulte magtrelationer og uhensigtsmæssige handlingsmønstre, og via den erkendelse hjælpe os til at bryde ud og handle anderledes.

En del af de navne, der nævnes i Clasens kronik og kommentarerne til den, så som Freud, Foucault og Lakoff, er præcis eksempler på den form for forskning. ..."

Humanistisk videnskabsteori er noget særligt

De sidste par indlæg har på bloggen har handlet om forskningspolitik. Det er et emne, jeg nok skal komme tilbage til, men denne gang vil jeg tage

videnskab.dk

Now it is late here, so only this:
"
In the humanities, on the other hand, one primarily seeks to understand and interpret human life and our cultural products. However, some humanistic research also (similar to the social sciences) has a liberating potential.

By examining and reflecting on what it means to be human, humanistic research can make us recognize hidden power relations and inappropriate patterns of action, and via that recognition help us to break out and act differently.

Some of the names mentioned in Clasen's chronicle and the comments on it, such as Freud, Foucault and Lakoff, are examples of exactly that kind of research."

In short the text in effect explains something which is cultural science(humanities) and subjective. That is the point.

First, between German and English, it is very obvious that that these languages have a relationship.
That said, it appears you are including what I might call daytime television popular science in what I would call social sciences. This is the "theories" and other observations and conclusions that are posited by entertainers without using the question, hypothesize, verify method.
They have value, but mostly as a source for ideas and not as a part of "real" science.
Late for me to go out and mow my lawn. Sunset before 10:30 PM ?

 

[Pogo]

First, between German and English, it is very obvious that that these languages have a relationship.
That said, it appears you are including what I might call daytime television popular science in what I would call social sciences. This is the "theories" and other observations and conclusions that are posited by entertainers without using the question, hypothesize, verify method.
They have value, but mostly as a source for ideas and not as a part of "real" science.
Late for me to go out and mow my lawn. Sunset before 10:30 PM ?

Not quite right, I think you are including as a subset studies of how social interactions have brought us to how we think about things now. This is in my understanding part of the social sciences and not a separate category.
Off to mow my half hectare, sleep well.

 

[paarsurrey]

@ post #481.

The same way the Religious Method, can resolve and or resolves the disagreements, right?

Regards

 

[Polymath257]

@ post #481.

The same way the Religious Method, can resolve and or resolves the disagreements, right?

Regards

Please describe this 'religious method'. Explain how it would resolve a conflict between, say, an evangelical Christian and a Shiite Muslim.

 

[shunyadragon]

@ post #481.

The same way the Religious Method, can resolve and or resolves the disagreements, right?

Regards

How does your 'religious method' deal with the objectively based sciences of evolution

 

[Pogo]

How does your 'religious method' deal with the objectively based sciences of evolution

right.

 

[Madsaac]

We can go through how that is and how it appears to remain so as long as humans are humans.
So for words like rights, good, meaningful, useful and so on, I have never come acroos an objective methodology in either science, philosophy or religion.
And I can explain how that is, if you accept that subjective can in some cases be true, real and with evidence.

Yeah but if you want to explain or measure things subjectively, won't you end up with an infinite number of results? Just endless feelings and opinions, not facts.

So you need science to continue to develop ways of understanding our universe. And when you understand something wholly or objectively (proven), it will help to decide what is good, meaningful, useful and so on.

Subjective thoughts/feelings are important because they may be able to help science arrive at a an objectively/proven outcome.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

First, between German and English, it is very obvious that that these languages have a relationship.
That said, it appears you are including what I might call daytime television popular science in what I would call social sciences. This is the "theories" and other observations and conclusions that are posited by entertainers without using the question, hypothesize, verify method.
They have value, but mostly as a source for ideas and not as a part of "real" science.
Late for me to go out and mow my lawn. Sunset before 10:30 PM ?

I recall it. It was a debate about what science is. The article I link was written by a natural scientist in favor of cultural science as a form of science.
It was not actual science as science done, but what is science?
Try to observe using the objective methodology of science what science is and you will notice it is what humans say it is. I.e. what makes science science is a cultural norm.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yeah but if you want to explain or measure things subjectively, won't you end up with an infinite number of results? Just endless feelings and opinions, not facts.

So you need science to continue to develop ways of understanding our universe. And when you understand something wholly or objectively (proven), it will help to decide what is good, meaningful, useful and so on.

Subjective thoughts/feelings are important because they may be able to help science arrive at a an objectively/proven outcome.

Well, you can use the subjective to understand other humans as subjective. That is important in some jobs and something you have to learn to do if you don't want to harm other humans.
In short for say a work like residential social worker for people with special needs.
In short for a work like that you combine science as you understand it, social science and cultural science. The last 2 one can in part include the subjective as subjective.

So what is the worth of a human? How should I treast another human? What is harm or a good life?
If you think you can do that just objectively, I don't know what to say.

 

[Madsaac]

Well, you can use the subjective to understand other humans as subjective. That is important in some jobs and something you have to learn to do if you don't want to harm other humans.
In short for say a work like residential social worker for people with special needs.
In short for a work like that you combine science as you understand it, social science and cultural science. The last 2 one can in part include the subjective as subjective.

So what is the worth of a human? How should I treast another human? What is harm or a good life?
If you think you can do that just objectively, I don't know what to say.

Yes mate, I think I hear what you're saying and I agree, we have personal feelings, thoughts, experiences, that no one else will understand because they are subjective. And they are extremely important for us to live a 'good' life and help others. These subjective feelings can range from putting your whole life to the whims of a religion, to the feelings of seeing your son score a goal.

However, for example, to help understand about the deeper goings on of social work you are going to need 'studies' which can and probably will to a certain degree explain (even prove possibly) the many different aspects of social work. And science will only get better at understanding the world, including social work. (NB. I don't know if 'studies' is the right word but they can be used in any type of science, natural, social and cultural.)

And you would trust a lot of these studies? So if you trust these studies, this must mean they are very important and useful.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes mate, I think I hear what you're saying and I agree, we have personal feelings, thoughts, experiences, that no one else will understand because they are subjective. And they are extremely important for us to live a 'good' life and help others. These subjective feelings can range from putting your whole life to the whims of a religion, to the feelings of seeing your son score a goal.

However, for example, to help understand about the deeper goings on of social work you are going to need 'studies' which can and probably will to a certain degree explain (even prove possibly) the many different aspects of social work. And science will only get better at understanding the world, including social work. (NB. I don't know if 'studies' is the right word but they can be used in any type of science, natural, social and cultural.)

And you would trust a lot of these studies? So if you trust these studies, this must mean they are very important and useful.

Well, in sort to do a live you can learn about the objective, intersubjective and personal subjective aspects of being in and a part of the universe.
And for that you can use natural sceince, social science and cultural science.
But here is a joke in a sense. What religion is, is not just natural science. To understand what religion is, you need the 2 other ones.