Most folks may not even comprehend this. What is empirical in quarks and their parameters? Isn’t materialism in whole (and science in part) dealing with abstractions?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why are the Sciences Empirical?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Most folks may not even comprehend this. What is empirical in quarks and their parameters? Isn’t materialism in whole (and science in part) dealing with abstractions?
PureX
Veteran Member
Excellent post, thank you. I have lived my life in the field of art, and a similar thing happens there. There is fine art, there is decorative art, there is creative design, there is illustrative art, there is craft, and so on, all under the umbrella of "art". However, each of these vary in their actual relationship to the human endeavor referred to as "art". Some vary so widely that I object to referring to them as art, at all. But I don't get to define the language, so it remains a very big umbrella.
Example: art is not entertainment (they are two very different human endeavors), even though art objects can be and are often entertaining. And entertainment can be and often is expressive of a personal experience of being, as in art. Understanding, specifically, what defined the endeavor will clarify for us which is which, but most of us do not understand, specifically, those definitions. And so the delineations tends to get blurred. And especially when a bias gets involved.
gnostic
The Lost One
Cooky
Veteran Member
Oh, wow!
The ignorance here is just blinding.
I'm talking about the scientific method, moron.
gnostic
The Lost One
Again, the reply is staggeringly ignorant.
The Scientific Method is a process for what scientists should do
- to formulate the hypothesis (eg explanation, prediction, mathematical models),
- to test the hypothesis via observation (eg evidence, experiment), which are data,
- to analyse the evidence or test results (from repeated experiments) to determine if the hypothesis is probable or improbable, which provide premise for the conclusion.
Do you understand that, Landon?
Cooky
Veteran Member
And you think this process was not thought up as an *idea* by humans, to come to more reliable conclusions?
...Because that's my point, that you say is "ignorant". Maybe you think the Scientific Method is not a man-made, thought out process by humans, but is seen somewhere else in nature?
Tell me, gnostic, where else in nature do we see the scientific method applied.
Cooky
Veteran Member
@gnostic, the scientific method *is* philosophical... In and of itself..! And philosophy is not empirical in any way.
...So empirical evidence cannot be viewed as the sole method for gaining scientific knowledge, by the very structure of science itself.
So science is an invention. Just like I said in post #13, that you objected to:
...So empirical evidence cannot be viewed as the sole method for gaining scientific knowledge, by the very structure of science itself.
So science is an invention. Just like I said in post #13, that you objected to:
Last edited by a moderator:
gnostic
The Lost One
Of course it is man-made.And you think this process was not thought up as an *idea* by humans, to come to more reliable conclusions?
...Because that's my point, that you say is "ignorant". Maybe you think the Scientific Method is not a man-made, thought out process by humans, but is seen somewhere else in nature?
But it is methodology to reduce personal preferences and personal biases of any scientist, by letting the evidences or test results to decide if the hypothesis or theory is (A) PROBABLE or (B) IMPROBABLE.
If it probable, then the hypothesis has potential of being accepted as “Scientific Theory”.
But if it is improbable, then the scientist should not even bother to submitted before the Peer Review, since he or she (or they) have already debunked the hypothesis.
Cooky
Veteran Member
I know.
My only point is to argue against the title of the thread -- "Why are the Sciences Empirical". I think I have successfully proven that the sciences are not purely empirical. Science has philosophical thought (imagination) engrained in it's very structure.
Last edited by a moderator:
Cooky
Veteran Member
Not fully..! Nothing can be addressed fully without philosophy (imagination).
I'd love for anyone to try and prove me wrong.
Last edited by a moderator:
gnostic
The Lost One
Not fully..! Nothing can be addressed fully without philosophy (imagination).
I'd love for anyone to try and prove me wrong.
You have got the wrong view on philosophy.
There are many different philosophies, and these often taken views that disagree with other philosophies.
And then there are philosophies that focused on specific areas in human societies.
For instances, there are types of philosophies that are very specific areas, like -
- specific to people’s ethnicity, which there are thousands of philosophies
- some that are specifically focused on different political views,
- some that are religion-related or spiritual-related or mystical related or those are non-religion-related (eg atheism, agnosticism),
- some that are science related (eg empiricism, or experimental science vs theoretical science, or natural philosophy, the methodological naturalism vs metaphysical naturalism), or related to different mathematical views,
- other are specific to different types of reasoning (eg deduction vs inference reasoning) or logic,
- and so on, and on.
With so many different philosophies, how does anyone know of these are right, how would one judge.
You do realise that philosophies are man-made pursuits, and since there are so many of them that have opposite views, philosophers would take sides, and defend their philosophies, just as religions and sects do.
For instances, Christians defend their Christianity against all other non-Christian religions, but they also defend one sect against others (eg Roman Catholicism vs Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholicism vs Protestants, very other sects vs Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc).
Philosophies are like religions, in many ways. And people being “human”, will lead to being factional and bias against other that follow different philosophies.
There are no ways to meditate between different factions of different philosophies.
You scoff on Scientific Method and branded as another philosophy.
It isn’t philosophy, but more of methodology of applying some objectivity to test any explanation presented in hypothesis or theory. This objectivity, by letting the observation via evidence or test results from experiments, to determine if the hypothesis is “science” or not.
The whole purpose of Scientific Method is to let the evidence do the talking for any model, not the scientist’s personal preference or bias, not the scientist’s ego.
If all or the majority of evidence or test results back up the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is probable. But if the evidence or test results don’t back up the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is improbable, thus the hypothesis has been refuted/debunked, and then the scientist will know his or her hypothesis is wrong.
The Scientific Method is a standard procedure of how to acquire knowledge and to test it (again, eg experiments and evidence).
The philosophies that support using evidence to determine if any explanation (model, hypothesis or theory) is true or false, are Empiricism, Methodological Naturalism, and perhaps a few others.
Empirical evidence means acquiring enough evidence to test it against any explanation that will determine if the hypothesis is probable or improbable. Empirical evidence are used for testings, as mean of verification and refutation.
A hypothesis or theory or model that cannot be tested with empirical evidence, are considered UNFALSIFIABLE, therefore it isn’t scientific theory or not even a hypothesis for that matter.
gnostic
The Lost One
How about trying to prove your view or your argument are right?Not fully..! Nothing can be addressed fully without philosophy (imagination).
I'd love for anyone to try and prove me wrong.
No view or opinion is considered “right” by default. No views or opinions are right until they can substantiate their views or opinions.
Do you think your view is right, then prove it.
gnostic
The Lost One
What do you mean by this?
Cooky
Veteran Member
Since I've already pointed out the scientific method itself, as a philosophically constructed method, I guess I could move down the list, in a reductive manner, and tackle every other subject I can think of. But that could take days or weeks depending on how many subjects there are.
...It might be easier to come up with some subject that doesn't have any philosophical constructs to it. But I can't think of any.
Last edited by a moderator:
I asked a question.
gnostic
The Lost One
And I’d like to answer your question, but I am asking for clarification.
Can you rephrase the question that's less ambiguous?
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
Since I've already pointed out the scientific method itself, as a philosophically constructed method, I guess I could move down the list, in a reductive manner, and tackle every other subject I can think of. But that could take days or weeks depending on how many subjects there are.
...It might be easier to come up with some subject that doesn't have any philosophical constructs to it. But I can't think of any.
Much of my university’s days, the science I learned are what applied to my courses.
In the 80s, I was studying civil engineering, and the physics, geology and maths that were taught and related to in several different subjects. Much of involved in Newton’s mechanics, of forces and motions, and in hydrology. I had to learn about geology, because of rocks that I could encounter during excavations and the design requirements in foundation for buildings, roads, bridges and pipelines.
The science involved have specific applications to the works I would be doing. At no stage was I taught philosophies.
Then in the mid to late 90s, I changed my career, and began studying computer science, as a computer programmer and systems analyst.
One of the reasons why I changed from civil to career in computers because, of CAD (Computer-aided Design) was fascinating to me.
Once again, the the subjects that I was taught, involved science that would have application, some basic electrical and electronic engineering, electromagnetic fields (eg for networking), even basic optics (required to understand reflection and refraction in fibre optic), and so on.
Once again, I have to learn some science that are related to computers, and not just programming and algorithms. Not of this involved in learning philosophies.
Both courses not only involve in designs, project management, and testings, etc, but also learning the technologies involved and how to keep up with any advances and techniques, including the areas of scientific progresses.
Both courses involved in applied science, which don’t waste their times in philosophies. Philosophy will only hinder with what I have to do to achieve in projects, whether it be designing, supervising or programming.
Philosophy, particularly modern philosophies, are not very useful.
Cooky
Veteran Member
I get your point. In my field, I deal with electrical theory, electrical transformation using vectors, and electrical generation. With working in this field though, I have had to take pause in seeing the big picture in that, science does not actually know what electricity is. Science only knows how to ‘contain’ it, and predict things about it.
...That's where my philosophical curiosities took root -as a side interest. I guess maybe picking up where science ended?
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, the quark model makes many predictions that can be tested. Among the easier predictions are the types of composite particles that are allowed. So, the existence of the charm quark means that we expect composite particles made out of charm plus other quarks (mesons with two quarks, baryons with three). The theory also predicts the types and probabilities of decays for those composite particles.
As for evidence of the quarks themselves, there are scattering experiments that show that protons and neutrons have internal particles that act 'free' inside those baryons. Again, the quark model predicts and explains such scattering experiments.
Yes, science has hypothesis formation built into its very structure. But, generally, philosophy as such has very little value in actually formulating hypotheses. Philosophy is NOT the same as imagination!