The Essence of Science

[shunyadragon]

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

Yes, but as already described, the 'search for differences' is too general and vague to be used to describe the 'essence of science,' because the entire animal kingdom does this as a simply means of survival.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

Of course you can think for yourself, but at this point you have not addressed adequately the issues of 'What is the essence of science?'

Scientist definitely do think for themselves, and philosophies and personal views of the paradigm of science may vary, but science remains science over time.

 

[WalterTrull]

Science seems the currently most practical way to build really strong Jou Jou. Unfortunately, (or maybe fortunately) its magic is fading. What's next?

 

[shunyadragon]

Science seems the currently most practical way to build really strong Jou Jou. Unfortunately, (or maybe fortunately) its magic is fading. What's next?

Needs clarification, because among the scientific community world wide there is no magic left. The magic began to fade from science since the time of the Greeks.

"When the subject of inquiry in any discipline, has principles, conditions or elements, for example; When considering scientific knowledge we will not comprehend the subject until we consider the universal [or general]."

Aristotle

 

[Ponder This]

It was a discussion on the difference between the nature of a scientist and an artist.

It seems to me that science might be more accurately described as repeat ability whereas art is more accurately described as capturing the unique.

When the artist raises his brush to the canvas, he does so knowing the repeat ability (or science) of the strokes he will make, but his aim is to capture something special, unique or intrinsic to his subject.

When the scientist, conducts his experiment (each experiment being unique), his aim is to determine what is the same between this experiment and his other experiments.

The scientist doesn't look for differences, he looks for commonalities.

 

[shunyadragon]

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?

There are the underlying motives of science in general, which is Methodological Naturalism, and the advancement of the knowledge of science. This over time neutralizes any personal or philosophical motives towards science. The personal and philosophical motives of Isaac Newton, Dawkins, nor Charles Darwin do not remotely effect the long term outcome and evolution of the knowledge of science.

 

[Sunstone]

There are the underlying motives of science in general, which is Methodological Naturalism....

How are you defining "methodological naturalism"? What does that term mean to you?

 

[Curious George]

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.

Except if you determine there is no difference then you have determined sameness. The addition of similarities is unnecessary-especially when we are this far removed from the concrete.

 

[shunyadragon]

How are you defining "methodological naturalism"? What does that term mean to you?

From: Methodological Naturalism

"Methodological naturalism is not a "doctrine" but an essential aspect of the methodology of science, the study of the natural universe. If one believes that natural laws and theories based on them will not suffice to solve the problems attacked by scientists - that supernatural and thus nonscientific principles must be invoked from time to time - then one cannot have the confidence in scientific methodology that is prerequisite to doing science. The spectacular successes over four centuries of science based on methodological naturalism cannot be gainsaid. On the other hand, a scientist who, when stumped, invokes a supernatural cause for a phenomenon he or she is investigating is guaranteed that no scientific understanding of the problem will ensue."

 

[osgart]

Are not cause and effect "differences?"

Distinguishable yes. But differences isn't the main objective of science. Evident functionality is. However if everything were the same there probably would not be anything real going on. If hydrogen was all there ever was, we wouldn't be here trying to figure out what it is, and how it functions. You need space to have hydrogen gas.

Sometimes science tries to unify though what is part of a whole. Similarities, and sameness isn't excluded from science. Shared properties and so forth.

 

[blü 2]

"Science is the determination to establish differences."

Is this accurate?

The aim of science is to explore, describe and explain nature: to answer the question, what's true in reality?

And the essence of science is scientific method ─ to argue honestly and transparently from examinable evidence, and on that basis to find the best conclusion available or the best answer to the particular question on the table; and to submit the conclusion to the scrutiny of one's peers.

(That's not all, but it's the outline.)

 

[sandy whitelinger]

The aim of science is to explore, describe and explain nature: to answer the question, what's true in reality?

And the essence of science is scientific method ─ to argue honestly and transparently from examinable evidence, and on that basis to find the best conclusion available or the best answer to the particular question on the table; and to submit the conclusion to the scrutiny of one's peers.

(That's not all, but it's the outline.)

Good enough. I get your message.

 

[Sunstone]

From: Methodological Naturalism

"Methodological naturalism is not a "doctrine" but an essential aspect of the methodology of science, the study of the natural universe. If one believes that natural laws and theories based on them will not suffice to solve the problems attacked by scientists - that supernatural and thus nonscientific principles must be invoked from time to time - then one cannot have the confidence in scientific methodology that is prerequisite to doing science. The spectacular successes over four centuries of science based on methodological naturalism cannot be gainsaid. On the other hand, a scientist who, when stumped, invokes a supernatural cause for a phenomenon he or she is investigating is guaranteed that no scientific understanding of the problem will ensue."

To you, does that paragraph contain a clear and useful definition of methodological naturalism? Just trying to get an idea of how you think. Not interested in debating anything.

 

[shunyadragon]

To you, does that paragraph contain a clear and useful definition of methodological naturalism? Just trying to get an idea of how you think. Not interested in debating anything.

Clear and useful enough to make it clear that science is not only neutral to metaphysical propositions and beliefs, but cannot appeal to metaphysical principles and beliefs to falsify theories and hypothesis. The reference is longer with more details.

One could refer to the Stanford Dictionary for an even longer discussion. There are more involved and longer writings on Methodological Naturalism and falsification by Popper. These references are a little long and involved for the layman.

Do yo have specific questions concerning the application of the philosophy of Methodological Naturalism in scientific methods?

 

[Willamena]

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?

It's poetic.

Aristotle developed the process of classification, basically "this belongs with these" and "this doesn't belong with these." The quote seems to be making a rhetorical point, though.