Science and Value Judgements

Post Reply New Topic

This is interesting. You and ZEGH seem, ( correct me if I'm wrong ), to be debating what the word science, a value judgement in itself, means/refers to/symbolises.

Like an argument about what truth, or justice or god or masculine or wrong means.

Your position seems to be that the word refers to some quality/approach/attitude/system of values, and ZEGH seems to think it refers to the "industry", all the activities involved in processing the products of that attitude, ( from the data collection to the dissemination and application of it ).

What makes something "scientific"? In your opinion it is the creation of and testing of hypotheses. Thus it could almost apply to any field of human studies/research, and even the business of living itself.

Could your definition of science be equated with that of spirituality and ZEGH's with religion? In that religion involves all activities connected with a church, many of which are not spiritual at all, whereas spirituality can be pursued/experienced anywhere.

It's interesting that science should mean something so different to two people. I wonder which one most people would agree with.

.

your right, its a matter of defining a word.

as i said in the end, in norwegian the word is "knowledge" and so - to norwegians it has entirely more direct connotations than "science". the definition i go by - is that science is ALL activity, that relies on the method of science.

No, I can't imagine why anyone would think it did, but each of the words "negative" "charge" "have" and "electrons" is a value judgement in itself. Each one represents a choice to separate groups of actions/events/"things" into smaller groups on the basis of certain/selected differences.


Justice is a value judgement all on its own. "We obtained justice" Something was "unjust". Truth is a huge value judgement. "Is that true?" etc. Some words are more obvious than others. ZEGH and Monty are in the middle of debating the word science, because the word itself is a value judgement.

.

To how many "removes"?

Would my using an electric kettle count? Typing on this keyboard? Travelling by steamboat? A journey by car? Running a hot bath?

Where does your definition of science stop?

.

okay, lets re-define slightly:

its the pursuit of knowledge, in all its variations and forms, that relies on the method of science.

there... i think i got it now.

And by "the method of science" you mean ... the "creation and testing of hypotheses", or something else? Because if "the method of science" means "the pursuit of knowledge etc" your argument is circular.

And if science means "the creation and testing of hypotheses" then science can be everywhere.

Where is science located?

.

Yes, science is a process based on the scientific method. One can approach any field and use this method - social sciences are sciences. But much of what is 'social studies' is not social science - there may be humanist narratives, political opinions, and other non-scientific products ... these may or may not be 'true' or 'useful' but they are not generally the products of science. I have a science of my backyard - I know certain things about it after trying various things in a controlled way to test my little theories.

There are other ways of knowing, which can be quite valid in various contexts. Observation, logic, intuition, and other methods are not invalidated by the scientific method (in fact, the scientific method requires all these).




Yes, words and meanings are important. Not just in Norwegian, but in all languages, the idea of what science is varies a good deal - there are many common uses of the word science that are not precise. And I am the same way about philosophy - I see philosophy as a process of trying to get to the truth ... simply learning about the lives of philosophers is certainly not philosophy; learning what the great names in philosophy thought might trigger a person to engage in philosophy, although often we just see automatons memorizing a list of facts ("Is this going to be on the test??").

I read and speak (and rarely write) Icelandic (Old Norsk, before it got corrupted ) "-fræði" is used similar to "-ology" to name particular disciplines. Science itself is referred to as Vísindi or "Vísindafræði" where Vísindi means knowledge obtained through the scientific method. Rannsókn refers to research, while Tilraun is an experiment or trial. Tækni is used for the application of research - it is technology. þekking/þekkur is one way of saying knowledge - and this word is used to ask if someone knows something.... þekkur is also a rune, which ties into Ouinon's whole thesis of the creation of words/meanings.

Last edited by monty on 13 May 2009, 1:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

yes, by method of science i mean by

testing
proving/disproving
going back to testing, if disproved.
or testing further from there you proved, to gain more info.

on related note, by corrupted you mean danified yes?
cus from the more or less middle norway, and northwards, danish gained as good as no vocal support, and the language spoken is a "unspoiled" development of old norwegian ;]
which is why southerners keeps mocking us up here, for talking "incomprehensibly"

well quit talking quasi-danish you snobs >:0

Yes, one could point to certain continental influences; the Danes on the south, the Swedes on the east. What valley dialect do you speak?? There were 2 hilarious movies from Iceland in the 1980s ... Dala Líf, or "Valley Life" ... the misadventures of two young men not spoiled by the outside world.

.

Last edited by ouinon on 13 May 2009, 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

the danification was aimed by forcing all writing to be done entirely in danish, plus the "upper class" also switched to danish, kindov like russification.
under swedish control, norwegians were never forced nor urged to write or talk swedish (unlike the finns, who were bullied into speaking swedish), so the swedish influence would be as great as the norwegian influence on swedish. the norwegian/swedish border dialects are SO funky

in fact, my dialect, which is the trønder one, has more similarities w swedish, than w southern norwegian.
technically, the dialect covers the entire northern half of the country, since north of trondheim only consists of smaller towns and settlements, all of them originally colonized by trønders.
south of trondheim, the dialect variation is a lot more pronounced, and many of them are as good as separate languages, like norwegian and swedish. "a language is a dialect w an army and a navy"

btw why do you speak icelandic? are you icelandic? you mentioned færoese as well.
i have never heard spoken færoese, but i find icelandic to be VERY interesting to listen to. i know some icelanders, and ive seen one documentary in icelandic, and one miniseries. its SO awesome
it sounds like i SHOULD understand it, cus all the sounds are norwegian, the melody and accents, theyre all VERY familiar, but it almost sounds like... someone pretending to speak norwegian
if i listen REALLY carefully, ill grasp a lot of words and meanings, but usually its just *woosh* above me

Your definition of science seems to be based on a definition of science. Like saying Truth is an expression of truth. Or justice is what we see when justice is done.

Can you define science in a way which does not do that?

If science includes not only the gathering, collating, manipulating of data etc and the experiments themselves, but also the dissemination, application, and reading/learning of results then that could mean that anyone reading about peak oil is a "scientist". Or does someone have to participate in all stages of the process in order to qualify as a scientist?

What is the crucial "bit" which makes someone a scientist in your opinion?

.

The willingness to put one's hypotheses to empirical test. If the test comes back negative, the hypothesis is wrong. So being scientific means willingness to take the risk of being wrong.

ruveyn

So anyone who is prepared to test their theories is a scientist? They have to be a falsifiable theories, but the standard of testing need not be sophisticated?
.

Last edited by ouinon on 13 May 2009, 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Could you be a scientist who never manages to get the funding to actually test your hypothesis? Just have a theory, and wait for someone else to test it?

Would you qualify as a scientist if you had dozens or even hundreds of theories/hypotheses but never actually succeeded in testing any of them?

Would you be a scientist if you hypothesised that excluding the colour red from your paintings would result in greater sales, and tested it by excluding red for a certain period?
.

Last edited by ouinon on 13 May 2009, 4:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.