What is science and what constitutes it?

[MikeF]

You mean: FIRST you give me your judgmental notions and THEN you ask into my collective understanding of what modern science says and if I have alternate or more knowledge than this!?

Excuse me, but I expect another approach in these matters.

IMO

Alrighty. You seem determined to be offended. You have my thoughts on the relationship between science and philosophy.

 

[stevecanuck]

Science isn't a philosophy. It's a method.

 

[cladking]

Science isn't a philosophy. It's a method.

It's very much a philosophy and sets of assumptions and axioms within a framework of definitions all within the scope of consciousness and the way we think.

We assume we can see snippets of reality within experiments.

Not only is it fundamentally a philosophy but the current paradigms are even more specific philosophies. Science is a philosophy within a philosophy spawned by philosophy.

 

[stevecanuck]

It's very much a philosophy and sets of assumptions and axioms within a framework of definitions all within the scope of consciousness and the way we think.

We assume we can see snippets of reality within experiments.

Not only is it fundamentally a philosophy but the current paradigms are even more specific philosophies. Science is a philosophy within a philosophy spawned by philosophy.

The scientific method does not include the making of assumptions. It posits based on what is currently known, and then investigates. Many a scientific investigation has disproved that which was posited, thereby proving it is in the fact business.

 

[MikeF]

Science isn't a philosophy. It's a method.

IMO

From Wikipedia:

Philosophy (from Greek: φιλοσοφία, philosophia, 'love of wisdom')[1][2] is the study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language.[3][4] Such questions are often posed as problems[5][6] to be studied or resolved. Some sources claim the term was coined by Pythagoras (c. 570 – c. 495 BCE);[7][8] others dispute this story,[9][10] arguing that Pythagoreans merely claimed use of a preexisting term.[11] Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation.[12][13]​

In this definition, with philosophy being the study of general and fundamental questions, the term science would encapsulate that definition.

Science is not "a method". Science uses many methods and tools with which to solve problems, each problem requiring a set of methods specific to investigating that problem. Science is philosophy governed by a set of principles and standards that help insure that the particular set of methods used take into account potential errors and fallibilities injected into the process by human investigators and that every effort is made to mitigate those potential errors.

Note that I say mitigate and not eliminate. The process is not perfect, but is the best we have and infinitely better than making no attempt to mitigate human error.

 

[MikeF]

It's very much a philosophy and sets of assumptions and axioms within a framework of definitions all within the scope of consciousness and the way we think.

I would agree that the labels, definitions, and categories we create to discuss and explain reality are the result of the way we think, how our brains function.

I do not understand what you mean by "within the scope of consciousness."

We assume we can see snippets of reality within experiments.

We do not assume we can see snippets of reality, we know we can perceive reality, within the limits of our biological senses and the tools we use to enhance those sense, because of reasoned expectation based on experience. Through consistent and repeated observation that is corroborated by multiple observers over time, the world we perceive is real and existant.

IMO

 

[cladking]

The scientific method does not include the making of assumptions. It posits based on what is currently known, and then investigates. Many a scientific investigation has disproved that which was posited, thereby proving it is in the fact business.

I provided an example of just one of the assumptions it makes and you ignored it.

 

[MikeF]

From: Understanding science: scientific assumptions | News24

These six assumptions are common to all the disciplines, to all scientists:

• Nature is orderly, and the laws of nature describe that order. ...
• We can know nature. ...
• All phenomena have natural causes. ...
• Nothing is self evident. ...
• Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience. ...
• Knowledge is superior to ignorance.

 

[stevecanuck]

I provided an example of just one of the assumptions it makes and you ignored it.

Are you referring to your post #23? I read it again and I don't see an example. I see only a series of assertions.

 

[cladking]

Are you referring to your post #23? I read it again and I don't see an example. I see only a series of assertions.

It's a very very very incomplete list but try looking at post #28.

 

[stevecanuck]

It's a very very very incomplete list but try looking at post #28.

You seem to be referring to a post you didn't make. It also post-dates anything you said to me.

And, btw, I have exactly zero problem with the points in post #28.

 

[rational experiences]

All human's die.

Life is transitory.

Science as the human talks about human eternal life.

You want to invent it as science. It doesn't exist.

Sex only allows a human presence to say humans science.

When you no longer exist you'll understand nor did science.

A human not an animal who would still exist afterwards preaches science.

False preaching....science by human terms.

How does human science know,? Dinosaurs not human lived on earth in a different atmosphere.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The scientific method does not include the making of assumptions. It posits based on what is currently known, and then investigates. Many a scientific investigation has disproved that which was posited, thereby proving it is in the fact business.

I suppose there is a certain sense in which this is true, at least concerning The Scientific Method presented in e.g., science education classes and textbooks (up to and including college), popular science books, popular science magazines and online equivalents, etc. As we don’t actually use The Scientific Method in scientific research and never have, and as it exists only as a kind of pedagogical lie and popular myth, it would be rather difficult for any practicing scientist to have any assumptions about The Scientific Method that is relevant to their work.

But if you mean refer to “scientific methods” actually used by practicing scientists, then there are a whole slew of assumptions that vary widely from field to field but are always present (explicitly or implicitly). Then there are the sets of assumptions practicing scientists rely on (again, both explicitly and implicitly) that vary within any given field based on different approaches and often correspondingly based on (usually tacit, even unconscious) metaphysical, philosophical, even political worldviews.

That there are always assumptions at play in scientific research is perhaps less important for non-scientists to understand (at least initially) than is the fact that The Scientific Method that most of us learned in school (and which may have been reinforced elsewhere, such as e.g., popular science books, articles, podcasts, etc.) is a myth. Interestingly, its form (at least in the US) has a rather singular source, being largely borrowed with little variation by the publishers of the early 20th century (seeking to meet a new demand from the rapidly growing education system) from an influential book on the relevance of logic by John Dewey: How We Think

"Dewey was not the first to try to separate the intellectual process of scientific reasoning from the laboratory method of instruction to which it had been wed since the 1880s...
Ironically, none of his discussions of science education clearly laid out what became known as the steps of the scientific method. The work that spelled these out and that was ultimately responsible for reifying the five-step process in the nation’s classrooms was How We Think, a short textbook for teachers that Dewey described as “an adaptation of a pragmatic logic to educational method…
Despite his borrowing from the sciences, it is important to understand that Dewey did not try to provide a stepwise account of how scientists went about their work. He aimed rather to describe reflective thought in the most general sense-to detail the way people used thinking as an effective guide to practical action.”
Rudolph, J. L. (2005). Epistemology for the masses: The origins of “the scientific method” in American schools. History of Education Quarterly, 45(3), 341-376.​

The more global history (and even the American history) of this idea of The “Scientific Method” is more nuanced, of course. It is so pervasive that decades of attempts by scientific organizations such as the AAAS or NAS, a vast number of conferences, countless papers published in journals on education or more specifically on science education, and more, have all failed rather spectacularly in their attempt to reform the manner of science education to better reflect actual scientific practice and dispel the myth of The Scientific Method.

There is in general no clear cut distinction between the methods used for the growth of scientific knowledge by (among other things) scientists engaging in scientific research on the one hand, and methods used in other fields and areas of inquiry on the other. For example, what makes certain developments in mathematics “science” (usually physics) and others “mathematics” is often context. An unfortunate illustration of this and how it can slow progress is the development of gauge theory. In the physics community, this misnomer was initially proposed by Weyl and then largely (and almost immediately) rejected. It was later rediscovered during the crisis after the short-lived triumphs of QED and is now at the foundation of the standard model after the groundbreaking work by physicists (e.g., C. N. “Frank” Yang and Robert Mills of Yang-Mills theory fame).
Meanwhile, mathematicians practically next door to the leaders in the development of gauge theory were working on much the same kinds of problems as a continuation of more general mathematical developments in manifolds, differential geometry, etc.
So while physicists were developing the mathematics of gauge field theory, mathematicians were independently doing much the same work (at much the same time, albeit a bit earlier) in terms of fiber bundles, sections, connections, etc.
About a century earlier, such distinctions between physical theory and mathematical research would hardly have been possible, and indeed the historical development of field theory is a marvelous example of empirical findings providing motivation for theoretical development which was in turn the motivation for and then beneficiary of advances in mathematical physics, all by scientists for whom these distinctions are largely anachronistic and likely bordering on nonsensical.
Other examples include areas such as history, anthropology, and linguistics, in which research in the same field using different methods with different aims may fall under a different scientific discipline (e.g., biological anthropology vs. the more qualitative, social science anthropology or cognitive linguistics vs. historical/comparative linguistics) or fall outside the sciences altogether.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I would agree that the labels, definitions, and categories we create to discuss and explain reality are the result of the way we think, how our brains function.

I do not understand what you mean by "within the scope of consciousness."



We do not assume we can see snippets of reality, we know we can perceive reality, within the limits of our biological senses and the tools we use to enhance those sense, because of reasoned expectation based on experience. Through consistent and repeated observation that is corroborated by multiple observers over time, the world we perceive is real and existant.

IMO

Whilst the world we perceive may be real and existent, it is nevertheless axiomatic that our perception of it is subjective.

Our view of the world is dictated by perspective, scale, the depth and precision of our focus, and the range of information our senses are able to present to the alchemist, mind, to interpret and make sense of.

Adjust the lense a little, look closer, or further out; see the ant, the hairs on the ant, the new leaf, or the forest; still we cannot see them all at once. There is no view from everywhere, every view is a view from somewhere. Furthermore, nothing is settled, nothing is fixed, everything in the natural world exists in relation to everything around and within it. And it is all in flux - indeed, impermanence can be said to be the defining characteristic of the material world.

If you are looking to science to deanimate nature, to so calibrate, calculate and define her infinite qualities, as to rob her of all mystery, I submit that you will be disappointed.

Heaven’s utmost deep
Gives up her stars, and like a flock of sheep
They pass before [man’s] eye, are numbered, and roll on!
The tempest is his steed, he strides the air;
And the abyss shouts from her depth laid bare,
Heaven, hast thou secrets? Man unveils me; I have none.

- Percy Shelley, Prometheus Unbound

 

[Native]

Alrighty. You seem determined to be offended.

Not at all. I just underlined how a respectful philosophical debate should work in general. So just go on

 

[Native]

Science isn't a philosophy. It's a method.

And how do you think science became science?

 

[Native]

The scientific method does not include the making of assumptions. It posits based on what is currently known, and then investigates. Many a scientific investigation has disproved that which was posited, thereby proving it is in the fact business.

You´re describing the ideal conditions and method of science, but in the real world it is difference.

Even 350 year after Newtons gravitational pull, modern astrophysics and cosmologists STILL ASSUME a gravity force without being able to explain by what dynamic force and means it should work.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And how do you think science became science?

Probably by analyzing the efficacy of various problem solving methods. It started out as "natural philosophy" where people used observation and rational thought. There are limitations to that and it has flaws. Personal bias can heavily affect one's conclusions. The scientific method attempts, and often succeeds, to minimize the effects of personal bias.

There may be a better method out there. But no one has found it yet. You will also see some science deniers here. They don't appear to like science because it is too hard. They appear to want an easier method. Often because they cannot justify their beliefs.

 

[MikeF]

IMO

Whilst the world we perceive may be real and existent, it is nevertheless axiomatic that our perception of it is subjective.

Indeed, we human beings as individuals are imperfect observers and interpreters of the world around us. Yet it is through intersubjective corroboration that we gain great confidence that (in a simplistic sense) a particular tree is a real tree and a rock a real rock, etc. In addition to this, we can now build tools that expand our perception well beyond the biological limits of the individual.

If you are looking to science to deanimate nature, to so calibrate, calculate and define her infinite qualities, as to rob her of all mystery, I submit that you will be disappointed.

I reject this sentiment entirely. This fiction that to understand reality robs one of their subjective awe and wonder of nature, of it all.

Does understanding the magic behind modern movie-making ruin ones ability to ever enjoy and become immersed in a movie? I don't think so.

 

[Native]

You will also see some science deniers here. They don't appear to like science because it is too hard. They appear to want an easier method. Often because they cannot justify their beliefs.

This is a typical answer from a conventional point of view and it doesn´t call much for a further debate.

A patronizing, besserwissen and downgrading attitude without using critical analysis and recognizing any shortcomings in modern astrophysics and cosmology.

"WE alone know" and when it comes to the matter, THEY only knows of 4 % of the observable Universe. The rest is in dark mode in the modern cosmological theory.