Science

[Birch]

Been spending a bit more time on this as a topic and felt (yes, not thought) it was time to bring it to the TTB's since there has been such (my sense) a 'science vs' kind of a vibe. It's also something that I've been seeing misused pretty much everywhere I look at the moment, so I figured I'd bring it to table like the good dog I am.

 

Apologies for the source website. Last time I checked this was not 'Marxist' thinking, but hey.

 

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/at/popper.htm

[GrandmasterP]

There's a wonderful story of Popper reported by Ray Monk in his bio of Wittgenstein....

Popper and Wittgenstein were in heated debate in Russell's rooms in Cambridge. So heated did the discussion become that Popper, an excitable sort; picked up the poker from the fireplace and brandished it threateningly at Wittgenstein who calmly responded...

'Whilst we all have feelings Popper old man, sadly; intellect is less equitably distributed'.

 

I quite like the trade name for our friends in white lab coats prior to the moniker 'scientist' being coined.

They were called 'natural philosophers'.

Edited November 18, 2012 by GrandmasterP

[Birch]

Righto Mr GranP. One of the more interesting points made in the article is that changing a name does not change a fact (or if I've understood correctly, it ought not to)

 

Edit: Not to insist on this point, but to insist on this point (name changing does not = fact changing), I found it very close to some practice-induced thoughts/experiences.

 

Like religion, there's (IMO) the pointy-hat version of science and the actual what it means stuff (check out the part of the article on uncertainty).

 

I loved the part about the scientists not understanding the theory named after them.

 

Also remarked upon this insistence on uncertainty. That sort of doesn't fit with the Taoist ideas I have been studying but I'll ponder that some other time.

 

The subject I want to stick on is why is there such a 'science vs' thing going on right now when, if you read the article and to the point made by Humble, it's 'just' a way of discovering things?

Edited November 18, 2012 by -K-

[Aaron]

I think it's important to remember that science is, in and of itself, a philosophy of its own. That's the reason there seems to be so much "science vs." going on, because the philosophy of science is contrary to so many other philosophies. I will be the first to say that science is a good thing, but we should also not lose sight of our humanity for the sake of progress, which is something I believe many people fear. Where do we draw the line, or is there even a line that we can draw?

 

Aaron

Edited November 18, 2012 by Aaron

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

I think it's important to remember that science is, in and of itself, a philosophy of its own. That's the reason there seems to be so much "science vs." going on, because the philosophy of science is contrary to so many other philosophies. I will be the first to say that science is a good thing, but we should also not lose sight of our humanity for the sake of progress, which is something I believe many people fear. Where do we draw the line, or is there even a line that we can draw?

 

Aaron

 

 

Science, God, Tao, History, they are all references, but not singularly absolute.

[Humble]

I think it's important to remember that science is, in and of itself, a philosophy of its own. That's the reason there seems to be so much "science vs." going on, because the philosophy of science is contrary to so many other philosophies. I will be the first to say that science is a good thing, but we should also not lose sight of our humanity for the sake of progress, which is something I believe many people fear. Where do we draw the line, or is there even a line that we can draw?

 

Aaron

 

I disagree. True science is nothing more than a methodology to discover,,,,well anything supposedly. It is a manifestation of human curiosity, not the curiosity itself. Scientitsts are curious people. Even the boring stuffy ones. Its their curiosity, born from whatever philosophy they possess that drives discovery onward. To call science a philosophy is like saying its the carpenters plans and hammer that does the work, not the carpenter.

[Gerard]

.

Edited September 16, 2013 by Gerard

[Birch]

It's an interesting post Gerard but I'm not sure how it relates to the Popper article I posted above.

Could you explain?

 

What I meant about the 'Taoist' difference was about uncertainty. I'm finding it hard to articulate but it seems like the article suggests that science implies uncertainty which to me is a bit strange. Is the activity of science creating actual uncertainty as a fact of reality? Is it creating an illusion of uncertainty by its activity?

[Gerard]

.

Edited September 16, 2013 by Gerard

[Brian]

 

 

I disagree. True science is nothing more than a methodology to discover,,,,well anything supposedly. It is a manifestation of human curiosity, not the curiosity itself. Scientitsts are curious people. Even the boring stuffy ones. Its their curiosity, born from whatever philosophy they possess that drives discovery onward. To call science a philosophy is like saying its the carpenters plans and hammer that does the work, not the carpenter.

 

As someone who put in the time and energy (read "kung fu") to become accomplished at "science," I strongly agree, Humble.

 

Asking Marxist philosophers their opinion of science (I happen to be quite fond of the moniker "natural philosophy, BTW, when referring to physics) is like asking their opinion of energy cultivation...

 

[Brian]

 

 

As someone who put in the time and energy (read "kung fu") to become accomplished at "science," I strongly agree, Humble.

 

Asking Marxist philosophers their opinion of science (I happen to be quite fond of the moniker "natural philosophy, BTW, when referring to physics) is like asking their opinion of energy cultivation...

 

If you would like a sincere discussion of science vs., -K-, I'd be glad to chat on Monday!

[宁]

I love science

[Andrei]

I love taoist science too

[Apech]

I love science too ... and I enjoy watching/listening to cutting edge physicists talk about their work. But I still come away with the conclusion that although science portrays itself as pure empiricism ... as if it is genuinely open enquiry ... all scientists carry a paradigm of an objective reality which can be put on the workbench (so to speak) dissected and understood which does not properly include consciousness (substitute word of choice) in the equation.

[forestofclarity]

Science is like mainstream economics. Mainstream economics gives us a wink and says "assuming that people are rational actors with complete information"--- a wink we all know to be completely untrue in our own common experience. Likewise, science assumes that there is an objective reality "out there" to begin with, like some mountain waiting to be discovered.

 

Yet this is not what we find, in our own experience nor in scientific discoveries. We do not find the hard, static matter of certain ancient Greeks, we find a world constantly changing. Quantum experiments show that the fundamental nature of a particle appears to change depending on how we choose to measure it. Independence and separation, the hallmarks of the scientist worldview, are illusions. All things are energy, and energy is hardly fixed. By its nature, it changes, transforms, moves, and vibrates. Trying to capture this with concepts, no matter how fluid, is doomed to failure. I'm now old enough to have seen in my life many changes in science, especially the brain, which was once declared to be a static, fixed thing.

[Andrei]

 

Deals with what is considered top-notch science, cutting edge science and what many may say "pseudo" science.

 

Just found a keyword in the above doc: Patent.

I am not sure how many of you are aware of the "intellectual property" business?

Edited November 18, 2012 by steam

[Marblehead]

I am not a scientist. I am a Tzujanist.

 

Science attempts to define facts. Tzujan is the natural processes of the universe.

 

Most "facts" I will never know. I do try to understand the natural processes of the universe.

 

I look at science as a learning game. We start off with a hypothesis (a thought), gather support to further our hypothesis until we are able to state a theory. Once we have a theory we try to find data in an unbiased manner that proves our theory without over-looking any data that disproves or theory. If we find only supporting data we can then state that our theory is fact until it is disproven. Through the eons many "facts" have been disproven but many others still hold water.

 

From my Taoist point of view, observing the natural processes in the universe requires some attention to "cause and effect".

[Aaron]

Actually science is very much a philosophy, a fact most scientists would like to refute, but are rarely able to. Just because they are objective, doesn't mean they don't follow a specific philosophy, let call it the "scientific method", for lack of a better word.

 

In regards to Taoism and Science, I think they're both tied together, the only difference is that most Taoists respect nature and are unwilling to try and control it, whereas most scientists feel it's their duty to learn how to control it.

 

Aaron

[Marblehead]

In regards to Taoism and Science, I think they're both tied together, the only difference is that most Taoists respect nature and are unwilling to try and control it, whereas most scientists feel it's their duty to learn how to control it.

 

Aaron

Indeed. Once we begin dissecting anything we lose the total essence of what it is we are observing. What we end up with are incomplete truths. (These are sometimes called lies.)

[Birch]

 

 

As someone who put in the time and energy (read "kung fu") to become accomplished at "science," I strongly agree, Humble.

 

Asking Marxist philosophers their opinion of science (I happen to be quite fond of the moniker "natural philosophy, BTW, when referring to physics) is like asking their opinion of energy cultivation...

 

Well, as I mentioned before I don't think that Popper was a Marxist (seems he was a critic which is why the Marxists would have his stuff).

Yes I suppose asking opinions from non-practicing anyones is bound to be hit and miss but I reckon as long as the folks asked can state where they derive their opinions from it's fine by me (maybe I shouldn't do that though?)

 

Would appreciate more from you than less:-)

[Birch]

 

 

If you would like a sincere discussion of science vs., -K-, I'd be glad to chat on Monday!

 

Yes yes!

[Birch]

I love science too ... and I enjoy watching/listening to cutting edge physicists talk about their work. But I still come away with the conclusion that although science portrays itself as pure empiricism ... as if it is genuinely open enquiry ... all scientists carry a paradigm of an objective reality which can be put on the workbench (so to speak) dissected and understood which does not properly include consciousness (substitute word of choice) in the equation.

 

I get this idea too but I was under the impression they had found a way of getting around that issue. Short of just saying 'well it doesn't matter' of course. Maybe A Seeker would be kind enough to talk about it on Monday?

 

Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

Edited November 18, 2012 by -K-

[Birch]

Forestofemptiness. I'm no longer sure whether this issue of dynamic and changing vs static can be attributed to a shortcoming on the part of scientists themselves, the way they present things, the way other people present their work or something else.

I know I'm sounding very 'pro-science' at this juncture (and probably 'Marxist' for some :-p) but I'm presently convinced 'something's wrong' with science. I have a feeling it's behaving (or being behaved, given it's people doing it) more like a faith-based 'something' than it was before. Is it just me?

[GrandmasterP]

I'm no expert but I do work in a university wherein scientists roam. They don't undertake speculative research any more because there simply isn't the money available to pay them to do so. Research is sponsored by companies and / or government funded and the paymasters don't pay for wooly dreamers to chase fads. the funders want product or super improved product.

The biggest ambition amongst academic science bods is to bale out of university research and into a big bucks 'spin off' company out in the science park on the edge of town on a cut of the huge royalties from licensed discoveries.

That happens more often than you might imagine.

[GrandmasterP]

Happily, Philosophy of Education provides a sinecure for wooly dreamers.

Long may it do so.