What is science and what constitutes it?

[MikeF]

It doesn't help to study subjectivity with science if you think you can do it better. How? Because better is still subjective. We are playing the Is-Ought problem. You can't solve that with science.

The wants and desires are subjective. It is reconciling different subjective wants and desires that is the objective task. This is where science comes in.

 

[cladking]

It doesn't help to study subjectivity with science if you think you can do it better. How? Because better is still subjective. We are playing the Is-Ought problem. You can't solve that with science.

Sure you can.

We merely need to define and study consciousness. Until we understand how we think and how this relates to reality we won't really understand how many different ways an experiment can be interpreted.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The wants and desires are subjective. It is reconciling different subjective wants and desires that is the objective task. This is where science comes in.

Yeah, we disagree.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure you can.

We merely need to define and study consciousness. Until we understand how we think and how this relates to reality we won't really understand how many different ways an experiment can be interpreted.

We disagree.

 

[MikeF]

Yeah, we disagree.

Got it.

 

[cladking]

We disagree.

I didn't mean to imply that knowing how many different ways an experiment can be interpreted will lead to the one and only correct interpretation. I merely meant that it should be possible to factor out the effects of consciousness. By examining experiments in context of other experiment it should be possible to winnow down the number of possibilities. Yes, I know we al ready do this on an individual basis and it is the heart of hypothesis formation. But I am suggesting that we also need to see science from the perspective of the understanding of consciousness. I believe anomalies will become more apparent and a wider array of experimental interpretation possible.

I suggest that numerous paradigms can emerge and those with the best predictive capabilities can be selected.

 

[MikeF]

Sure you can.

We merely need to define and study consciousness. Until we understand how we think and how this relates to reality we won't really understand how many different ways an experiment can be interpreted.

It is my understanding that the goal is to refine the interpretation of a particular set of data to a single, accurate interpretation, not to expand the number of varied and disparate interpretations.

 

[cladking]

It is my understanding that the goal is to refine the interpretation of a particular set of data to a single, accurate interpretation, not to expand the number of varied and disparate interpretations.

Yes. Well stated.

I'm suggesting that while this is not doomed to failure the process can be greatly speeded by cutting to the chase. It could take centuries for new paradigms to live and die only to be replaced by another that will do the same. I'm suggesting that every paradigm is doomed to failure but through understanding consciousness we should be able to at least select paradigms with the most predictive capabilities. We can avoid paradigms that arise through bad interpretation of experiment.

This is a complex process but not so complex that we can't deduce it and I'm sure the place to start is to learn to factor out consciousness. This is not so difficult as it might sound since all we really need is a working definition to begin studying it.

Modern metaphysics from the standpoint of definitions and axioms is simple enough but there is also no reason we can't use another kind of science based on logic with a highly complex metaphysics to run in tandem with it.

I am highly concerned about the fact science (cosmology) is bogged down and most people today don't understand the nature of science. One or the other of these is not a serious issue but together they make despots almost inevitable. There is or will be a "correct way to think" based on Look and See Science and deviation will be suppressed. Look around and you can see the early stages today. Science is sold to the highest bidder and the highest bidder already owns government. The teaching of metaphysics and critical thinking would stop this cold.

 

[MikeF]

Yes. Well stated.

I'm suggesting that while this is not doomed to failure the process can be greatly speeded by cutting to the chase. It could take centuries for new paradigms to live and die only to be replaced by another that will do the same. I'm suggesting that every paradigm is doomed to failure but through understanding consciousness we should be able to at least select paradigms with the most predictive capabilities. We can avoid paradigms that arise through bad interpretation of experiment.

This is a complex process but not so complex that we can't deduce it and I'm sure the place to start is to learn to factor out consciousness. This is not so difficult as it might sound since all we really need is a working definition to begin studying it.

Modern metaphysics from the standpoint of definitions and axioms is simple enough but there is also no reason we can't use another kind of science based on logic with a highly complex metaphysics to run in tandem with it.

I am highly concerned about the fact science (cosmology) is bogged down and most people today don't understand the nature of science. One or the other of these is not a serious issue but together they make despots almost inevitable. There is or will be a "correct way to think" based on Look and See Science and deviation will be suppressed. Look around and you can see the early stages today. Science is sold to the highest bidder and the highest bidder already owns government. The teaching of metaphysics and critical thinking would stop this cold.

IMO

I think I am beginning to understand what you are trying to say. The role money or funding plays in science certainly affects how science is conducted. However, I think you over-emphasize it. But the institution of science (if you will allow me to throw everything we consider scientific under the same umbrella) understands the myriad of problems involved in human beings trying to tease out the working of the cosmos and all that is in it, with money/funding being one of many.
What you seem to fail to appreciate, and it requires patience, is that bad science will out over time. In the long run, we keep chipping away at the unknown and growing our fundament understanding of the world and ourselves. The fact that progress in science seems to be two steps forward and one step back is just the reality of we fallible human beings being involved in the process. We cannot take the human being out of the equation to solve the problems we create, we just have to rely on the self-correcting nature of the scientific process, regardless of how messy and inefficient, for without scientific principles and standards, we would get nowhere. The historical record is clear on that score.

I would also suggest that your hope for a "new science" based on metaphysics (however you may define that) and logic is a quixotic one. In fact, your definition of a "new science" is simply the description of the archaic classic philosophy that science has replaced. To adopt such a scheme would stagnate progress in science.

As for consciousness, I am not clear as what you imagine it to be, or mean, but I do not think you will find a magic bullet there that will greatly change the way science is conducted.

The last point I want to address is your apparent frustration with cosmology being "bogged down". The fact that we have cosmological problems that are hard to solve is not an inditement of science, it simply speaks to the difficulty of the problems that are being addressed. Again, patience is required. There is no non-scientific shortcuts to solving these difficult problems.

 

[cladking]

The fact that we have cosmological problems that are hard to solve is not an inditement of science, it simply speaks to the difficulty of the problems that are being addressed.

I'm not at all finding fault with cosmology. Yes, I think some individuals are off the beam a little with their belief that reality can necessarily be discovered through mathematics but certainly it might.

The only "science" I would indict is Egyptology but then they are in no way at all science. They are even poor linguists. Instead of trying to understand reality they are standing in the way of those who are. It is the poster child of "Look and See Science" based not on hard evidence but the opinions of 19th century scientists and et als.

. In fact, your definition of a "new science" is simply the description of the archaic classic philosophy that science has replaced.

I'm not really talking about any kind of "new science" at all. I am suggesting a change in the way science is approached based on some understanding of consciousness iff I prove to be correct that consciousness can be studied scientifically. This approach would merely be the construction of models that would see experimental interpretation in terms that consciousness can be factored out.

Additionally, it might be possible to develop another science (ancient science) from the ground up to run in tandem with modern science. For most practical purposes you can think of this science as the science of consciousness which is practiced by every individual life form in existence. Due to the immense complexity of the metaphysics for such a science it would be necessary to be run on machines. No human could crunch numbers like this.

But regardless if any changes are to take place or do take place we still need a language of philosophy and science that has clear cut definitions for many words. We need more teaching of metaphysics starting with very young children. There's a reason every two year old answers every answer with the question "why?" At this age they are learning that there are no answers to even their simplest questions because every answer must be parsed. They are learning to think in a new and terrifying language. They are searching for the ultimate answer when the reality is there can be none if they learn to think as we do. This is a good age to whip a little metaphysics on them. The brain grows countless cells between two and three years of age and most will fall into disuse because we don't speak a metaphysical language any longer.

In the long run, we keep chipping away at the unknown and growing our fundament understanding of the world and ourselves.

Yes. This is exactly what I believe we can eradicate. Human progress has been going on for 40,000 years and we are little closer to the stars than Adam and Eve. I believe we can speed this up many many fold.

 

[MikeF]

I'm not at all finding fault with cosmology. Yes, I think some individuals are off the beam a little with their belief that reality can necessarily be discovered through mathematics but certainly it might.

The only "science" I would indict is Egyptology but then they are in no way at all science. They are even poor linguists. Instead of trying to understand reality they are standing in the way of those who are. It is the poster child of "Look and See Science" based not on hard evidence but the opinions of 19th century scientists and et als.



I'm not really talking about any kind of "new science" at all. I am suggesting a change in the way science is approached based on some understanding of consciousness iff I prove to be correct that consciousness can be studied scientifically. This approach would merely be the construction of models that would see experimental interpretation in terms that consciousness can be factored out.

Additionally, it might be possible to develop another science (ancient science) from the ground up to run in tandem with modern science. For most practical purposes you can think of this science as the science of consciousness which is practiced by every individual life form in existence. Due to the immense complexity of the metaphysics for such a science it would be necessary to be run on machines. No human could crunch numbers like this.

But regardless if any changes are to take place or do take place we still need a language of philosophy and science that has clear cut definitions for many words. We need more teaching of metaphysics starting with very young children. There's a reason every two year old answers every answer with the question "why?" At this age they are learning that there are no answers to even their simplest questions because every answer must be parsed. They are learning to think in a new and terrifying language. They are searching for the ultimate answer when the reality is there can be none if they learn to think as we do. This is a good age to whip a little metaphysics on them. The brain grows countless cells between two and three years of age and most will fall into disuse because we don't speak a metaphysical language any longer.



Yes. This is exactly what I believe we can eradicate. Human progress has been going on for 40,000 years and we are little closer to the stars than Adam and Eve. I believe we can speed this up many many fold.

IMO

All I can say is science can and does study consciousness.

I would also suggest that there is no such thing as ancient science.

Finally, I do not see what value you assume metaphysics brings to the advancement scientific inquiry and our collective knowledge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, that is part of it. But there is also the difference between physics and theoretical physics and how some people confuse hypothesis, model and theory and even confuse physics and theoretical physics.

Theoretical physics is math based. Quantum mechanics is an example. And concepts discovered using that math have been confirmed. Math is a very very powerful tool in physics. If the math works it is quite often confirmed at some point. Black holes are another example that just came to mind. They were purely mathematical until we learned how to detect them.

 

[cladking]

All I can say is science can and does study consciousness.

Real science can not study what it can not define or measure.

I would also suggest that there is no such thing as ancient science.

Let me say it this way then.

By some means termites, ants, and humans each invented agriculture. I am merely proposing that each species used the exact same means. You can call this means anything you want but I'm calling it "ancient science" because I believe it was based on a different metaphysics than our science.

Finally, I do not see what value you assume metaphysics brings to the advancement scientific inquiry and our collective knowledge.

I am defining the terms as "the basis of science". By this definition there is only a fine distinction between the two terms.

 

[MikeF]

Real science can not study what it can not define or measure.

IMO

Sure. We only know what we can observe in some way. Beyond that, we can guess or speculate. In addition to what we know, we can imagine imaginary and non-existent things/concepts. Scientific principles and standards help us discern between what is real and what is imaginary and non-existent.

Let me say it this way then.

By some means termites, ants, and humans each invented agriculture. I am merely proposing that each species used the exact same means. You can call this means anything you want but I'm calling it "ancient science" because I believe it was based on a different metaphysics than our science.

In another post, you mentioned the need to carefully define words. I do not find tacking the word "science" on to the behavior of ants and termites helpful. Really, all science means, at its most basic, is that when investigating a problem or documenting a phenomena, special care is taken to account for human fallibility in the process. That is all that "science" means. This does not apply to ants, termites, or any other species, nor to every human endeavor.

The behavior of the ants and termites are instinctual, hard wired behaviors. And yes, we human beings also have instinctual behaviors, however, we have the capacity to go well beyond mere instinctual behavior, learning and creating new behaviors. The "agriculture" of ants and termites and the agriculture of human beings are not equivalent.

I am defining the terms as "the basis of science". By this definition there is only a fine distinction between the two terms.

Then I would suggest you simply drop the use of the archaic term metaphysics. It is not needed and its use simply confuses the conversation by bringing in all the historical baggage associated with the long use of the term metaphysics.
I often find that people want to use and associate the term metaphysics with science as a way to bring in concepts and ideas that are not supported or justified by science.

 

[cladking]

In another post, you mentioned the need to carefully define words. I do not find tacking the word "science" on to the behavior of ants and termites helpful. Really, all science means, at its most basic, is that when investigating a problem or documenting a phenomena, special care is taken to account for human fallibility in the process. That is all that "science" means. This does not apply to ants, termites, or any other species, nor to every human endeavor.

No.

Science is the application of metaphysics to learning about reality. It is mostly for the purpose of prediction but humans and consciousness usually is curious.

Any logical process is likely to work. Indeed, logic can be secondary to the simplest sciences which are largely experiential or based on muscle memory. I'm aware of only two complex sciences but I doubt there is any limit on how many can exist. Our science is experimental because all homo omnisciencis see what we expect. We need experiment to differentiate reality from expectations. We are illogical so no logic or expert based system of science is even possible.

But termites are not illogical. They have language based on the wiring of their brains and their actions are based in logic and not belief. This allows a primitive science to emerge based on observation and logic instead of observation and experiment. Until 2000 BC this was like human science.

Any logical process that results in Knowledge > Understanding > Creation is a kind of science.

The behavior of the ants and termites are instinctual, hard wired behaviors.

You apparently don't spend much time observing animals. Animals don't "think" per se but most behavior is dependent on their consciousness rather than instinct. Humans rarely exhibit instinct but animals tend to much more often. If agriculture is instinctive to ants then what species existed before agriculture? What experiment shows complex behavior emerging from nothing?

The "agriculture" of ants and termites and the agriculture of human beings are not equivalent.

Both required theory in order to invent.

I often find that people want to use and associate the term metaphysics with science as a way to bring in concepts and ideas that are not supported or justified by science.

"Epistemology" is the only alternative and it is a less accurate word to mean "basis of science".

I agree that much of the problem is everyone speaks a different language and parses every utterance differently. The problem even exists in science as shown by the fact every scientist has a different model. Mathematics is incorrectly applied because every model is "wrong" in some way.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
This is especially why modern science needs more natural observers and pondering philosophers in modern science.

The problem here is simple; all ideas are individual.

Sure, but in the relevant case of comparing the numerous ancient cultural STORIES OF CREATION, it become a COLLECTIVE matter and not an individual one.

These global mythical/religious stories are remarkable similar. And of course so, as these stories of creation tell of the human common conditions on the same planet Earth, in the same Solar System, in the same Milky Way galaxy and in the same local part of the observable Universe.

THIS is the collective and common story of what is created and told of in the ancient stories of creation. It isn´t religious as such even that it induces a religious feeling when thinking of it - which in fact is logical too, as the word "religion" means a "mutual connection".

Unfortunately, historic philosophers, scholars, priests, authors and laymen have long forgotten this mutual and natural connection to everything. And this has also set it´s ignorant marks on modern cosmological science, which become more and more speculative and lesser wise.

 

[Native]

Then I would suggest you simply drop the use of the archaic term metaphysics. It is not needed and its use simply confuses the conversation by bringing in all the historical baggage associated with the long use of the term metaphysics.
I often find that people want to use and associate the term metaphysics with science as a way to bring in concepts and ideas that are not supported or justified by science.

What´s wrong with "metaphysics"? Modern science has discovered lots of things beyond and under the more physical realms.

BTW: When Newton launched his "gravity", this also was pure meta-physics as he couldn't explain the factual physics behind his assumed force. Newtons scientific temporary fellows even accused Newton for inserting an "occult agency", talking of meta

 

[Native]

Yeah, we disagree.

We disagree.

Mikkel, you seems to disagree a lot

What is really your philosophical and scientific "World Picture"?

 

[Native]

Additionally, it might be possible to develop another science (ancient science) from the ground up to run in tandem with modern science.

This work has basically really been done by our ancestors and it only need a modern interpretation of "deities", meaning "natural forces and objects".

In this connection, even the scientific standard model of the Solar System formation can be used and compared to the telling in ancient stories of creation.

In the ancient Egyptian Ogdoad story of creation this has 8 complementary elementary gases and particles and cosmological qualities which comes swirling together in a center and create a central light from where everything observed today is created.

With the important catch that the ancient story dealt with the creation of the Milky Way itself where the modern one "only" deals with the creation of the Solar System which is an integrated part of the Milky Way formation and rotation.

 

[Native]

We are illogical so no logic or expert based system of science is even possible.

But termites are not illogical.

Cladking, excuse me for connecting these two sentences, but it really says it all to me:

The rhythm of NATURE itself is logics and by following, observing and listening to nature, everything and all life become and are logical.