The Essence of Science

[atanu]

It comes from Herman Hesse's novel, "Narcissus and Goldmund."

"Narcissus: 'Yes. You've hit the nail on the head. That's it: to you [Goldmund], differences are quite unimportant: to me, they are what matters most. I am a scholar by nature; science is my vocation. And science is, to quote your words, nothing but the 'determination to establish differences.' It's essence couldn't be defined more accurately. For us, the men if science, nothing is as important as the establishment of differences; science is the art of differentiation. Discovering in every man that which distinguishes him from others is to know him."

This makes sense to me.

 

[shunyadragon]

It comes from Herman Hesse's novel, "Narcissus and Goldmund."

"Narcissus: 'Yes. You've hit the nail on the head. That's it: to you [Goldmund], differences are quite unimportant: to me, they are what matters most. I am a scholar by nature; science is my vocation. And science is, to quote your words, nothing but the 'determination to establish differences.' It's essence couldn't be defined more accurately. For us, the men if science, nothing is as important as the establishment of differences; science is the art of differentiation. Discovering in every man that which distinguishes him from others is to know him."

As I thought, this is not a coherent description of the 'Essence of Science,' because it is only an anecdotal personal philosophical view of science by Herman Hesse in his novel.

There is an element of discerning differences in science, but it remains simply an attribute of human nature as with pretty much all the animal kingdom, and not meaningful concerning what is the essence of science,

The essence of science may be described in different ways, but I believe it is best described; 'What can be determined as testable, predictable, repeatably, and functionally useful in understanding and usefulness of our physical existence?'

 

[Sunstone]

You didn't answer the question about why you ran a current through two elements.

That question seems to me irrelevant. The motive of scientists in doing something has no influence whatsoever on the outcome of their experiments, so of what possible importance are the scientist's motives?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I came across this and wondered if you think this describes the essence of science:

"Science is the determination to establish differences."

Is this accurate?

That definition omits an important job of science: Identifying similarities. What do the orbits of the moons and planets have in common with one another and with a falling apple? What generalization can be made that applies to all of these? F=ma = Gm1m2/r2

The periodic table of elements is not just about the differences between the elements, but also about the similarities of families of elements, say of the halogens.

In fact, I'd say that the principle job of science is to uncover these generalities and the hidden order in nature through the process of observation and induction.

 

[Sunstone]

It comes from Herman Hesse's novel, "Narcissus and Goldmund."

"Narcissus: 'Yes. You've hit the nail on the head. That's it: to you [Goldmund], differences are quite unimportant: to me, they are what matters most. I am a scholar by nature; science is my vocation. And science is, to quote your words, nothing but the 'determination to establish differences.' It's essence couldn't be defined more accurately. For us, the men if science, nothing is as important as the establishment of differences; science is the art of differentiation. Discovering in every man that which distinguishes him from others is to know him."

Apparently, Hesse was neither much of a scientist nor much of a philosopher of science.

The real essence of the sciences seems to be intersubjective verifiability, rather than the "determination to establish differences." In comparison to intersubjective verifiability, the determination to establish differences misses the mark by about as much as if someone were to say that "the essence of humanity is to go without fur upon one's body".

If the determination to establish differences were the essence or logical foundation of the sciences, then such features of science as replicability would be logically entailed by it. But that is not the case.

 

[atanu]

That question seems to me irrelevant. The motive of scientists in doing something has no influence whatsoever on the outcome of their experiments, so of what possible importance are the scientist's motives?

I think this needs to be considered in the context of Hesse's philosophical view and not from within the paradigm of science itself.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

That question seems to me irrelevant. The motive of scientists in doing something has no influence whatsoever on the outcome of their experiments, so of what possible importance are the scientist's motives?

Imagine your self as the very first scientist. I can imagine you looking at two things and asking youself, "Why are these two things different?" This would seem to me to me to be the ultimate motivation. Without that, science is just a group of technitions.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I think this needs to be considered in the context of Hesse's philosophical view and not from within the paradigm of science itself.

Why can't I view from the paradigm of Science. Can't I think for myself?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The essence of science may be described in different ways, but I believe it is best described; 'What can be determined as testable, predictable, repeatably, and functionally useful in understanding and usefulness of our physical existence?'

Agreed, but notice that this is also a description of how to create a recipe in the kitchen.

The cook begins with a hypothesis regarding combining various substances (sugar, salt) and subjecting them to various processes (blending, simmering), and does an experiment in the kitchen. The observation is the taste test. If the desired result was not achieved (too salty. overcooked, etc.), modifications are made in the recipe and the experiment repeated using these new parameters.

The prediction is made that repeating this set of steps will predictably and reliably reproduce the dish. When done, a generalization has been produced - the recipe - that can be used to successfully predict some aspect of nature.

This is science, too, as is the entire process of living and learning by testing. Finding the best route to get to work and which restaurants will most reliably serve you a meal that you will enjoy are the same processes - an idea, a test, a tweak, and voila, a generalization - what is true - that can be used to predict and at times control outcomes.

We've always been scientists, including the paleolithic people who experimented with materials and methods to make tools, hunt more successfully, raise crops more successfully, etc.. It's only in the last few centuries that this method was outlined explicitly and turned to the systematic study of nature at all scales.

This, to me, is the essence of science.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

That question seems to me irrelevant. The motive of scientists in doing something has no influence whatsoever on the outcome of their experiments, so of what possible importance are the scientist's motives?

It's important because the question is previous to operational definitions. That sounds like the essence of scientific inquiry.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Agreed, but notice that this is also a description of how to create a recipe in the kitchen.

The cook begins with a hypothesis regarding combining various substances (sugar, salt) and subjecting them to various processes (blending, simmering), and does an experiment in the kitchen. The observation is the taste test. If the desired result was not achieved (too salty. overcooked, etc.), modifications are made in the recipe and the experiment repeated using these new parameters.

The prediction is made that repeating this set of steps will predictably and reliably reproduce the dish. When done, a generalization has been produced - the recipe - that can be used to successfully predict some aspect of nature.

This is science, too, as is the entire process of living and learning by testing. Finding the best route to get to work and which restaurants will most reliably serve you a meal that you will enjoy are the same processes - an idea, a test, a tweak, and voila, a generalization - what is true - that can be used to predict and at times control outcomes.

We've always been scientists, including the paleolithic people who experimented with materials and methods to make tools, hunt more successfully, raise crops more successfully, etc.. It's only in the last few centuries that this method was outlined explicitly and turned to the systematic study of nature at all scales.

This, to me, is the essence of science.

And would not the taste testing be a search for differences?

 

[Sunstone]

Imagine your self as the very first scientist. I can imagine you looking at two things and asking youself, "Why are these two things different?" This would seem to me to me to be the ultimate motivation. Without that, science is just a group of technitions.

The question "Why are these two things different?" is wholly inadequate to describe the essence of the sciences. Does it logically entail naturalism? No. Does it logically entail replicability? No. Does it logically entail peer review? No. In fact, the question does not logically entail any of the main or crucial features of the sciences.

 

[atanu]

Why can't I view from the paradigm of Science. Can't I think for myself?

I do not know whether I will be able to explain what I understand or not. Let me try.

Herman Hesse was influenced by Schopenhauer, Buddhism, and Theosophy, and Eastern religions in general.

In general, in Eastern religions, the view of diverse objects that we see and take as granted is questioned. These objects are said to be consciousness risen in various forms due to various interactions. It is also said that the non-dual consciousness must be known in order to be freed of the bondages that bind us to pain. The truth, according to this view is non dual of which the ever-changing objects: mental and physical, are outcrops.

OTOH, science begins with a premise of the diverse objects as the reality and the only datum. How can from this position, the point of Herman Hesse be appreciated? One needs to see both religion and science together to understand.

YMMV.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I do not know whether I will be able to explain what I understand or not. Let me try.

Herman Hesse was influenced by Schopenhauer, Buddhism, and Theosophy, and Eastern religions in general.

In general, in Eastern religions, the view of diverse objects that we see and take as granted is questioned. These objects are said to be consciousness risen in various forms due to various interactions. It is also said that the non-dual consciousness must be known in order to be freed of the bondages. The truth, according to this view is non dual of which the ever-changing objects: mental and physical, are outcrops.

OTOH, science begins with a premise of the diverse objects as the reality and the only datum. How can from this position, the point of Herman Hesse be appreciated? One needs to see both religion and science together to understand.

YMMV.

Well said.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

And would not the taste testing be a search for differences?

I didn't mean to imply that science is not also about finding differences, just that that by itself, that definition would be an incomplete. A complete understanding of a collection entails identifying both similarities and differences.

Consider the tree of life and its taxonomical classification. Consider Pan troglodytes (the common chimp) and Pan paniscus (bonobos). Their differences are reflected by their species names, their commonalities by their common genus.

Continue up the taxonomical ladder to the level of the family they both belong to hominidae, which includes the other genuses of great apes (Pongo, Gorilla, Homo), all different from one another, but more like one another than they are like the monkeys, and so on. Isn't the theory of evolution an attempt to explain both the similarities (common descent) and differences (cladogenesis, or evolution in a branching pattern, with multiple new species evolving from a single parent species) among the various life forms?.

Calling man a bipedal or the naked ape is to define him a single phrase in terms of both what he has in common with the other hominids, and what distinguishes him from them.

The periodic table is not just about what the elements and families of elements have in common, such as the number of electrons in the outermost shell, but also, what makes them distinct from one another. Each element has a unique atomic and unique chemical properties.

 

[Sunstone]

I do not know whether I will be able to explain what I understand or not. Let me try.

Herman Hesse was influenced by Schopenhauer, Buddhism, and Theosophy, and Eastern religions in general.

In general, in Eastern religions, the view of diverse objects that we see and take as granted is questioned. These objects are said to be consciousness risen in various forms due to various interactions. It is also said that the non-dual consciousness must be known in order to be freed of the bondages that bind us to pain. The truth, according to this view is non dual of which the ever-changing objects: mental and physical, are outcrops.

OTOH, science begins with a premise of the diverse objects as the reality and the only datum. How can from this position, the point of Herman Hesse be appreciated? One needs to see both religion and science together to understand.

YMMV.

I largely agree with you, yet at the same time, I think it's superficial to designate the essence of the sciences as some sort of desire to differentiate between things. That is certainly not supported by the logic of the sciences.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I didn't mean to imply that science is not also about finding differences, just that that by itself, that definition would be an incomplete. A complete understanding of a collection entails identifying both similarities and differences.

Consider the tree of life and its taxonomical classification. Consider Pan troglodytes (the common chimp) and Pan paniscus (bonobos). Their differences are reflected by their species names, their commonalities by their common genus.

Continue up the taxonomical ladder to the level of the family they both belong to hominidae, which includes the other genuses of great apes (Pongo, Gorilla, Homo), all different from one another, but more like one another than they are like the monkeys, and so on. Isn't the theory of evolution an attempt to explain both the similarities (common descent) and differences (cladogenesis, or evolution in a branching pattern, with multiple new species evolving from a single parent species) among the various life forms?.

Calling man a bipedal or the naked ape is to define him a single phrase in terms of both what he has in common with the other hominids, and what distinguishes him from them.

The periodic table is not just about what the elements and families of elements have in common, such as the number of electrons in the outermost shell, but also, what makes them distinct from one another. Each element has a unique atomic and unique chemical properties.

In fact, the question does not logically entail any of the main or crucial features of the sciences.[/QUOTE]
Except why bother.

 

[Sunstone]

Except why bother.

I thought you were the person who started a thread on "the essence of the sciences". Shouldn't you be able to answer why you bothered to ask such a question?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I thought you were the person who started a thread on "the essence of the sciences". Shouldn't you be able to answer why you bothered to ask such a question?

To debate the replies, of course.

 

[Thief]

How can you discern one item from another without noting it's differences?

exactly the point...

experiments go on and on
but once in awhile a repeated experiment is done
the results seem sure
but later on a better experiment reveals what the first efforts failed to show

decades can pass before the better effort gels