Why are the Sciences Empirical?

[PureX]

FIRST, science depends on predictions; if a given prediction comes out to be true then we can be relatively assured that the "knowledge we gained through sensual experience" was probably correct.

Which is irrelevant to the topic, as it is not part of the definition of empiricism.

SECOND, Existentialism is defined as "a philosophical theory or approach which emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will.". Science, on the other hand, is hotly debating the subject of "freedom" and "free will"; and the evidence is certainly not leaning to the conclusion that "free will" actually exists. So throwing existentialism into the empirical realm of science is like throwing a banana into the lettuce and calling it a vegetable.

Science is doing no such thing. This is philosophical debate about a philosophical concept. The scientific method cannot function in a realm that includes "free will". It explores the mechanisms of physics based on the assumption that those mechanisms remain constant, and cannot be superseded by whim or chance. Because if they could be, no conclusions or predictions would be reliable, or even possible. What would be the point of posing a hypothesis or doing an experiment if the results could change according to will or whim?

 

[Cooky]

Like Einstein, who pioneered the "thought experiment"? Who actually visualized an expanding universe? Like Darwin lacked imagination when he visualized that species might change over time?

Neil DeGrasse Tyson said, "If you are not comfortable steeped in ignorance, being a scientist is not for you. To be a scientist is to stand on the threshold of what is known and not known".[Not a direct quote, so please be lenient; this is the meaning behind his words].

Do you actually think that scientists sit around pouring over old data without ever asking the childish question, "How's Come?"?

Your statement clearly demonstrates a lack of appreciation and understanding of science.

Yes, these great scientists were not radical empiricists. They were never stuck permanently in deductive thinking, and the world thanks them for it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think that much is lost when relying solely on the scientific method. For example, the modern 'empiricists' may tend to adopt a reductionist or "deductive" mainframe, based solely on knowledge -which results in the rejection of the unknown.

What does that even mean, "rejection the unknown"?

...It takes imagination to start the process of uncovering unknown areas, which is the very starting point of progress in the first place!

Empirical science ventures into the unknown all the time looking for answers.
What are you talking about?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So it started as a rejection of philosophy?

Not at all what he said.

It was the birth of scientific radicalism then

That's an absurd statement as well as a nonsensical notion. What the heck is "scientific radicalism"??

The beginning of reductionist thought in the sciences.

What do you mean by that?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How do you explain consciousness?

I'm pretty sure that plenty of scientists in relevant fields are studying "consciousness" as we speak.

Convergent evolution - Wikipedia

What's the problem with that? Convergent evolution is pretty well understood...

...The reductionist blows both of these off.

How so?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Just to make my point clear, i am going to give this unrealistic example: Imagine if you are to attribute the motions of the planets to God today. Which university is willing to recruit you?!

Any diploma mill associated with creationist organization, will be glad to have you.

Your point is not clear.

 

[Cooky]

@TagliatelliMonster, are you sure you want to go there? I can start a new thread, if you really want your mind blown. Just give me the word.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The scientific method cannot function in a realm that includes "free will"

And yet, it clearly does exactly that.
So something in your reasoning must necessarily be false.

It explores the mechanisms of physics based on the assumption that those mechanisms remain constant, and cannot be superseded by whim or chance.

And so far, that assumption seems to be working out quite well.
Assuming otherwise, would literally make science impossible. How are you going to calculate, for example, the amount of energy output you require for a space shuttle to achieve escape velocity, if you are going to assume that gravitational forces can fluctuate? How are you going to use the gravity of the moon to slingshot a space probe to mars, if you are going to assume that the gravitational force of the moon can fluctuate?

How are you even going to start building such a space-probe, if you have to assume that electromagnetism might work differently this afternoon then it did yesterday?

But more importantly, why would you assume such while just about all data EVER pointed to physical laws being pretty much what they are observed to be?

Because if they could be, no conclusions or predictions would be reliable, or even possible

Exactly, so why would one assume otherwise?
See, that's the thing... if you make these assumptions, you can actually make sense of reality and build technology. So the assumptions clearly work.

What would be the point of posing a hypothesis or doing an experiment if the results could change according to will or whim?

You seem to be confusing the cognitivie abilities of a free-willed individual with a complex brain, with the deterministic workings of physical laws.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, these great scientists were not radical empiricists. They were never stuck permanently in deductive thinking, and the world thanks them for it.

????


What is a "radical" empiricist and how does it differ from a "regular" empiricist??

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@TagliatelliMonster, are you sure you want to go there? I can start a new thread, if you really want your mind blown. Just give me the word.

Go ahead it sounds interesting.


I very much doubt you'll have the required amunition to make my mind blow though.
But go ahead, i'm always interested to learn something - no matter how unlikely that seems to be.

Perhaps tag in my name so I get a notification when the thread is up.

 

[Shia Islam]

If such a person were able to prove the existence of the deity, then universities would be drooling to recruit such a scientist who just made the biggest, most ground breaking discovery in all of science.

let us be realistic please, in this anti-God age, which university is ready to even publish his research?!!

 

[Polymath257]

let us be realistic please, in this anti-God age, which university is ready to even publish his research?!!

Given the money that would come in if such a proof were found, pretty much any university around.

 

[paarsurrey]

Intuition is much like imagination...

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand." ~ Albert Einstein

Is it the reason why what we don't know is always greater than what we have knowledge of?
Regards

 

[PureX]

And yet, it clearly does exactly that.
So something in your reasoning must necessarily be false.

Please give an example.

And so far, that assumption seems to be working out quite well.

Sure, because science does not and cannot address the realm of free will. It works fine within it's limitations. And it stays within those limitations.

Assuming otherwise, would literally make science impossible. How are you going to calculate, for example, the amount of energy output you require for a space shuttle to achieve escape velocity, if you are going to assume that gravitational forces can fluctuate? How are you going to use the gravity of the moon to slingshot a space probe to mars, if you are going to assume that the gravitational force of the moon can fluctuate?

You are making my point, now. Science cannot address the realm of chance, whim, or will because it's based on the presumption of existential constancy. But existence in not a constant. It is variegated with instances of randomness, whim, and will. If you can't see this in nature, you can certainly see it in us (we are also "nature").

You seem to be confusing the cognitive abilities of a free-willed individual with a complex brain, with the deterministic workings of physical laws.

You seem to be denying the existence of metaphysical cognition in favor of a bias for the "deterministic working of physical laws". A bias that even most scientists would question.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Science is doing no such thing. This is philosophical debate about a philosophical concept. The scientific method cannot function in a realm that includes "free will". It explores the mechanisms of physics based on the assumption that those mechanisms remain constant, and cannot be superseded by whim or chance.

Why don't you fact check my claims before simply waving them off? The question of Free Will has been addressed by science for a very long time now:

What Neuroscience Says about Free Will

Which is irrelevant to the topic, as it is not part of the definition of empiricism.

You really don't understand how all this works, do you? No. I don't think you do.

Okay.

My research indicates that all objects in a vacuum fall at 32 ft/s^2. So I can test this. If my tests indicate this assumption or conclusion to be true, then it can be reasonably stated that all objects in a vacuum at 32 ft/s^2 is empirically true. If my tests demonstrate a result other than all objects in a vacuum fall at 32 ft/s^2 and I made no errors in my experiment, then we can state that 32 ft/s^2 is NOT empirically true.

So yes. Successful predictions are very much so relevant.

I understand now why you yawn at the scientific method. You don't understand it.

Science cannot address the realm of chance, whim, or will because it's based on the presumption of existential constancy.

Well, I've already posted how science is addressing free will (i.e. whim?) Statistics and statistical analysis is beyond the realm of science because it deals with chance? Quantum particles popping in and out of existence is not related to "chance"?

 

[Milton Platt]

Recently, I heard someone allege that the sciences are empirically oriented because they are dominated by atheists who wish to deny the existence of God. Going beyond the obvious truth of that, what other reasons might there be for why the sciences are empirically oriented?

How does the prevalence of atheists in science make it empirical???

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Please give an example.

???

The fact that my computer works.

Science works, yes?
We have free will, yes?
How is that not science working in a realm with free will?

Sure, because science does not and cannot address the realm of free will.

???

Gravity doesn't have free will. Gravity is quite deterministic.

It works fine within it's limitations. And it stays within those limitations.

???

What are you talking about?

You are making my point, now.

By ignoring it, ironically?

Science cannot address the realm of chance

What are you talking about? Science is more then capable of dealing with probabilistic models and concepts of uncertainty. In fact, that's pretty much how quantum physics works.

, whim, or will because it's based on the presumption of existential constancy. But existence in not a constant. It is variegated with instances of randomness, whim, and will. If you can't see this in nature, you can certainly see it in us (we are also "nature").

You aren't making any sense.
Moreover probabilities (=chance) are vastly different from "will", which is a trait of beings with complex brains.

You seem to be denying the existence of metaphysical cognition

Metaphysical what-now?

in favor of a bias for the "deterministic working of physical laws". A bias that even most scientists would question.

What bias? What are you talking about?
What do scientists question?

When just talking physics (things like gravity, electro magnetism, etc) for example, what does "free will" have to do with that?

 

[atanu]

Recently, I heard someone allege that the sciences are empirically oriented because they are dominated by atheists who wish to deny the existence of God. Going beyond the obvious truth of that, what other reasons might there be for why the sciences are empirically oriented?

I think breakthroughs such as Einstein’s cannot be neatly categorised as purely empirical.

I think, Industrial revolution and rapid development of scientific instrumentation facilitated the empirical aspect of the scientific method, which is not limited to empiricism.

 

[gnostic]

Sure, because science does not and cannot address the realm of free will. It works fine within it's limitations. And it stays within those limitations.

It depends on what science you are talking about.

With physics, chemistry, Earth science and astronomy, they make up the Physical Science. While all forms of biology (including evolution) make up Life Science.

Together, Physical Science and Life Science can fall under a larger umbrella - Natural Science.

Other than proof-based theoretical science, that rely more on mathematical proofs instead of empirical evidence, Natural Science is all about testing scientific theories or falsifiable hypotheses. Natural Science must passed 3 hurdles to be accepted as “science”:

1. Falsifiability
2. Scientific Method
3. Peer Review

Failing even one of them, make any hypothesis or model will mean it would fail in the other 2 requirements.

Social Science, on the other hand, don’t need to follow these 3 requirements as Natural Science must meet.

Social Science is a very large umbrella that comprise of many disciplines relating to ways humans think or behave, the ways they live their lives (eg cultures) and human activities and achievements.

Psychology, sociology, anthropology, archaeology, history, political science, economics, laws (including legislation, ethics and morals), studies of languages (eg linguistics, philology), etc, they all fall under Social Science umbrella. Each of these have their own requirements, own rules, and because of humans being “human” there are just too many variables to follow the ways Natural Science of doing things.

The discussion of free will would fall under philosophy than on any science.

And I don’t think philosophy is very reliable.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

The discussion of free will would fall under philosophy than on any science.

It is addressed by psychology and neurology.