Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

What is science?

Page 1 of 2 [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

cw10
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 May 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 973

16 Jun 2011, 12:39 am

My definition of science is: Science is the universe querying itself.

Agree, disagree?



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

16 Jun 2011, 12:54 am

Well, at first glance it sounds cute.

And it could be taken as a companion or retort to "The proper study of Mankind is Man"

But I do not think it holds.

To take it as written, I would have to see the Kosmos as sentient.

Which I do not.

About the one way you could make it work:

You would have to buy into the idea of the universe generating observers as the only way to resolve the uncertainties, in which case you could argue that science is the maximal technique for facilitating the important observations.

But that really gets you into a chicken and egg Ouroboros scenario that OUGHT to bother a materialist scientist like my brother at least as much as an extra-universal divine entity.

Would ruveyn [close to my brother in may ways] buy into a universe that tweaks itself to produce observers, kind of like an oyster walling off grit into a pearl?



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

16 Jun 2011, 1:55 am

Philologos wrote:
Well, at first glance it sounds cute.

And it could be taken as a companion or retort to "The proper study of Mankind is Man"

But I do not think it holds.

To take it as written, I would have to see the Kosmos as sentient.

Which I do not.

About the one way you could make it work:

You would have to buy into the idea of the universe generating observers as the only way to resolve the uncertainties, in which case you could argue that science is the maximal technique for facilitating the important observations.

But that really gets you into a chicken and egg Ouroboros scenario that OUGHT to bother a materialist scientist like my brother at least as much as an extra-universal divine entity.

Would ruveyn [close to my brother in may ways] buy into a universe that tweaks itself to produce observers, kind of like an oyster walling off grit into a pearl?


Would a universe with conscious intent feel the need for observers?



Benbob
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 178

16 Jun 2011, 3:32 am

Science is a way of skeptically interrogating the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Image


_________________
Member of the WP Strident Atheists


Moog
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,671
Location: Untied Kingdom

16 Jun 2011, 3:54 am

Interesting diagram.

People can have faith in certain ideas or technologies or worldviews derived through a science of whatever kind, even though they are a wrong or a bad idea. I would draw a connecting line between the science half and faith half.

You need an element of faith in order to weave the products of science into reality. Call it faith, or confidence...


_________________
Not currently a moderator


cw10
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 May 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 973

16 Jun 2011, 4:18 am

Benbob wrote:
Science is a way of skeptically interrogating the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method


So, what you're saying is... you agree.

edit: Or maybe I should say "Science is the universe skeptically querying itself."?

Or wait, are you saying science is limited only to "the world" as you put it? That's a very geocentric view. /sarcasm 8)



Benbob
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 178

16 Jun 2011, 4:58 am

@ Moog: Faith and confidence are two vastly different things. Faith is absolute belief without evidence, confidence is being sure that the conclusions you draw about the evidence are not erroneous.

@ CW: No, the universe isn't doing jack (unless you count humans as part of the universe, which is true), humans do the science. You could say "parts of the universe, namely humans, employing the scientific method to understand the universe."

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I love Bill Hicks' stuff, but the poetry is a tad wanton and opens the door for hippies to misconstrue everything you say and turn it into some kind of cosmic delusion.


_________________
Member of the WP Strident Atheists


Moog
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,671
Location: Untied Kingdom

16 Jun 2011, 5:26 am

Benbob wrote:
@ Moog: Faith and confidence are two vastly different things. Faith is absolute belief without evidence, confidence is being sure that the conclusions you draw about the evidence are not erroneous.


I have faith that when I sit in my chair, it will support my bottom, rather than passing through it. The science part is in checking. If I have to science it rather than faith it everytime, then that takes up a lot of time and energy. The faith part is in having some confidence that the laws of physics that applied yesterday apply also today.

I don't think faith is inherently bad and science is inherently good, they are different functions or processes. Comparisons between them make no sense.

I do not see that the word faith implies absolute anything. Confidence can be absolute, faith can be. I can have weak faith and weak confidence.

This is my view.


_________________
Not currently a moderator


cw10
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 May 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 973

16 Jun 2011, 5:58 am

Benbob wrote:
@ CW: No, the universe isn't doing jack (unless you count humans as part of the universe, which is true), humans do the science. You could say "parts of the universe, namely humans, employing the scientific method to understand the universe."


So, what you're saying is, you basically agree. "Human parts" "do science" (query) using "tool parts" which are physical variables of the universe to measure other physical variables of the universe, so the universe is effectively querying itself yes? Or you're saying parts of the universe are querying other parts of the universe? But they could also be the same parts querying themselves... Mmm, endless progression where simple poetry will suffice. I like my version better.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xaj407ofjNE[/youtube]



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

16 Jun 2011, 7:27 am

cw10 wrote:
My definition of science is: Science is the universe querying itself.

Agree, disagree?


Disagree. Curious sentient beings are not the universe which is mostly non-alive.

ruveyn



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

16 Jun 2011, 7:34 am

Benbob:

Your diagram relies on the usual misunderstanding of what faith is.

Assuming that FAITH is "BLIND FAITH" or FANATICISM is the same type of false assumption as assuming ATHEISM is NONTHEISM or ANTITHEISM - where much, but not, I believe all ANTITHEISM is in fact FANATICISM.

I did not look closely at the linked "science" diagram, but I would not be surprosed if it too presented the common misunderstanding.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

16 Jun 2011, 7:38 am

cw10 wrote:
.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xaj407ofjNE[/youtube]


Sagan also thinks he can sing like a whale.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKEmj7W_b1c

Sagan is much to taken up with the "wow" or "gee whiz" mind set.

ruveyn



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

16 Jun 2011, 7:51 am

Benbob again:

I looked at the "science" diagram again. Right, Look particularly at the bit where experimental outcome NOT supporting the idea MEANS "bad idea". What, could it never mean poorly thought out experiment?

I will not again go through a more realistic take on science, but consider these two flows:

A Encounters an opinion NOT in his repertoire - investigate the evidence for the opinion - reevaluates the data corpus to formulate an understanding which may differ from both the original view and the newly encountered view

B.Encounters an opinion NOT in his repertoire - rejects the opinion and moves on with his agenda.

A is not per se science but is an attitude necessary for science to progress.

B is not per se BLIND FAITH [distinguish "faith"] but is an attitude present wherever BLIND FAITH is practised.



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

16 Jun 2011, 7:55 am

Benbob again:

I looked at the "science" diagram again. Right, Look particularly at the bit where experimental outcome NOT supporting the idea MEANS "bad idea". What, could it never mean poorly thought out experiment?

I will not again go through a more realistic take on science, but consider these two flows:

A Encounters an opinion NOT in his repertoire - investigate the evidence for the opinion - reevaluates the data corpus to formulate an understanding which may differ from both the original view and the newly encountered view

B.Encounters an opinion NOT in his repertoire - rejects the opinion and moves on with his agenda.

A is not per se science but is an attitude necessary for science to progress.

B is not per se BLIND FAITH [distinguish "faith"] but is an attitude present wherever BLIND FAITH is practised.



01001011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

16 Jun 2011, 8:16 am

cw10 wrote:
My definition of science is: Science is the universe querying itself.

Agree, disagree?


Define what is 'querying' and 'querying itself'.
Is a court trial the universe querying itself?
Is philosophy the universe querying itself?



01001011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

16 Jun 2011, 8:19 am

Philologos wrote:
A Encounters an opinion NOT in his repertoire - investigate the evidence for the opinion - reevaluates the data corpus to formulate an understanding which may differ from both the original view and the newly encountered view

B.Encounters an opinion NOT in his repertoire - rejects the opinion and moves on with his agenda.

A is not per se science but is an attitude necessary for science to progress.

B is not per se BLIND FAITH [distinguish "faith"] but is an attitude present wherever BLIND FAITH is practised.


What if that 'opinion' is obviously absurd, or one that had been refuted, and the party who hold the opposing opinion has no explanation or new evidence to bring?