*!"Do You Believe in Science?"!*

Post Reply New Topic

"There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination." Daniel Dennett.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett

The Philosophy of Science, summary/intro at Wiki, at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

"In ancient China science and technology were subordinate to value. The formless and personal Tao was holistically mingled with forms and usefulness."

ha
+1 karma for richard

it's fallible cause people can set up experiments differently... this is why there is scientific evidence to support both sides of this argument. you have to analyze their methods and know how they processed data... know enough to know whether their design is valid or not... and then decide whether you agree with their conclusions.

how do you think that it was demonstrated that the sun revolves? you take for granted what is "fact"...

what specifically changes?

this is a common claim i always hear... but examples are never given.

this is sadly true sometimes... which is why one has to have some wit when considering results... just cause something gets published doesn't make it equivocal to the bible.

Urgh...I was never good at giving concrete examples and arguments...

Not all of it changes...to use iamnotaparakeet's example: abiogenesis, for instance. It had it's line of followers. The earth was believed to be flat. See Lamarck and his explanation for evolution. Not even Darwin's is complete on it's own, so we add Mendel to the equation. How many "stages" did the atom go before reaching it's current theory (and I doubt it's the last one)?Just to name a few. Some scientific facts are always changing with the better and more sophisticated methods of deduction and testing.

I never said it's a bad thing. Evolution in science is a good thing.

I hope that made sense.

I believe science is the art of explaining things, and is not the subject of man. Man's science is subject to the faults of man, and should be questioned logically. Science in and of itself though possesses truths greater than man.... Therefore, if science is "wrong", science isn't really wrong, man is wrong, as man had misapplied science.
I also believe there are some things, that are scientifically possible, but not possible for human comprehension. Even --if-- "super natural" one day proves right, then it's not that super natural after all, it's just on a higher plane of science.

Demosthenes's "Atomikos" were finitely small Euclidean geometric shapes. Not based on physical data, but rather conjecture of possibilities.

Previously in Egypt there was a form of alchemy which got associated with "atomikos/grains" and later with Arab science there were four elements (earth, water, wind, and fire) and various combinations able to to "transmutate" (e.g. philosopher's stone.)

Robert Boyle applied Bacon's method's to the alchemical laws which after multiple experiments he conclusively rejected alchemy and postulated that atoms are mechanical corpuscles which seemed more viable with his current experiments.

John Dalton came up with some assumptions which have now proved mostly correct:

1. All elements are composed of small, indivisible particles called "atoms."
2. All atoms of the same element have exactly the same properties.
3. Atoms of different elements have different properties.
4. Compounds are formed when atoms are joined together. Since atoms are indivisible, they can only join together in simple, whole-number ratios.

J.J. Thomson discovered the electron and invented CRT's, but his experiment didn't involve the nucleus so he validly thought of the atom of having negative electron particles but conjectured about them sitting in a positive cloud (the plum pudding model).

Ernest Rutherford ran an experiment with helium nuclei and gold foil which overturned Thompson's idea. Using statistical analysis for the scattering pattern of the nuclei he concluded the atom consists mostly of empty space and came up with his "solar system" type model.

Niels Bohr refined the idea and incorporated the data of specific light energies so that the "solar system" had quantized orbit levels that depended on the electron's energy. His equations gave rise to unambiguously determining the number of element based on the light energy pattern.

I don't know much about Quantum Mechanics other than determining orbital configuration and other algorithms; the history I have not discovered yet. I think it was a group effort and not the product of anyone man's work though. Heisenberg and Feynman I think were involved.

Phlogiston

Last edited by ouinon on 01 Mar 2008, 8:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

yes, i expect that if i'd lived anytime between 1667 and the end of 18th c i would have accepted the "fact" of phlogiston.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:O ... c_theories

A couple more are the existence of Ether, The Four Humours, and the Steady State Theory.

But it's not so much that theories, even apparent facts, are disproved which is the problem, so much as that modern scientific process involves certain beliefs which are almost never questioned. One of the most crucial being that we, humans, ( who live by "meaning" and "value"), can discover how the world really works without including "value" in the calculation. ( this is what objective means; no values )

Last edited by ouinon on 01 Mar 2008, 8:42 am, edited 3 times in total.

Science and technology are no longer subordinate, or even connected, to "value".
This revolution of thought happened for the first time under christianity. ( it is the only religion under which this happened until recently) And is alleged to be progress. Interestingly, when postmodern, deconstructuralist critique follows this philosophical position through to its logical conclusions it is accused of being .... nihilist.

Last edited by ouinon on 01 Mar 2008, 4:03 am, edited 2 times in total.

which isn't how science advances at all in reality.

And it is perhaps a dangerous attitude. It is interesting to see how it has been followed by the loss of values generally in society, this belief that we can understand the world without them.

EDIT: realise is not a loss of values so much as an increased standard for them; just as objectivity in science has become more and more rigorous so has subjectivity.

Last edited by ouinon on 03 Mar 2008, 6:46 am, edited 2 times in total.

Successful in what it aim for: understanding the word. Being able to predict the outcome of experiments.

Massive greenhouse gases emission are not caused be science. It's because we use fossil energy to much, because it's for more easy than other options (In other word, cheaper). Science helps us to reduce greenhouse gaz emissions, by discovering more efficient processes.

Even more important point, science shown that these CO2 emission causes a critical environmental issue. Without this informed knowledge, we would not have done any effort in emission reduction. The effort may not be strong enough, but as a first step it is far better than nothing.

That's why I believe that science is very useful. (I'm not a scientist myself.)

Even if science was not useful, it would still be a valid way to understand the world.



I agree with you, there is a misperception of science in general public. I regret the public often lack scientific knowledge.

About the fact that science is not about nature of reality, and doesn't even postulate matter exists, I recommend you the book from Bernard d'Espagnat "Traité de Physique et de Philosophie". (Even if I think it doesn't take enough into account Everett interpretation).

What makes you think that science succeeds in understanding the world? Where is the evidence that we, humans, understand the world better now than 2000 years ago? ( Increased population could be evidence, IF believe that understanding the world has for final purpose enabling our propagation.)

Just knowing more things is not a sign of greater understanding. Unless someone knew the true nature of the world in its entirety and could let us know with marks out of 10 how we were doing we have no way of knowing if we understand better.

Okay, it is the fruits of technology ( esp cars, and electricity plants, and heating systems, and plastics production, etc) which use so much fossil fuel.

What if what science had actually produced, with its emphasis on objectivity, its assumption that it is possible to correctly understand the world without taking "value"/meaning/subjective factors into acccount, was a fundamental loss of judgement?

PS: re; Thanks for the ref. Will check it out.

I like Asimov's short story "Nightfall"; it tells how science can be massively mistaken in the truth about the world, in fact completely miss the most enormous and significant aspects.

Last edited by ouinon on 03 Mar 2008, 6:48 am, edited 4 times in total.