It is time this forum had threads about science.
So I will start one about science itself.
My statement is Science is fundamentally messy.
It is not nearly the idealized process just comprised of "hypothesis, theory" taught to 8th graders.
So discuss.
Here an introduction.
As einstein said it "starts and finishes with experience."
So.
1. Much of science is trying to validate evidence, and looking for patterns in experience and data to pursue..
It is not straight forward and yesterdays triumph can be tomorrows failure. It becomes hard with beings with free will (like humans) , its easier on things , and things that can be repeated or do repeat naturally.
2/ There is also the axiomatic model. Trying to fit new evidence to it. So there is also a second track, which is start with the model, not experience, make extrapolations from it and look for validation with experience.
But broadly we have these categories.
a/ Patterns in Experience for which there may be no model . All experimental laws like ohm, or boyle are just a pattern that have restricted applicability.
b/ Patterns for which there is a model that works - the model is where theories live - take kinetic theory of gases, which accounts for boyles law. But the lack of such model or theory does not invalidate boyles law.
c/ Patterns for which the model does not work leading to speculation on why, take galaxy shape and speculation on possible missing mass
d/ Models for which there is not or not yet verified experience. Star formation is hard to confirm because early stages emit very little light so much of the evidence is indirect. Superstrings suppose many more dimensions which are near impossible to observe or test..
e/ Models which contradict other models, and are never likely to resolve, leading to arguments on the nature of science and reality. Quantum.
f/ Experience which has yet to repeat. All you can do is take evdience and file it. Wait for more instances.
G/ At the bottom of the chain is speculation for which there is neither model nor experience.
Some things repeat naturally, some things can be repeated in vivo.
But if they do not repeat often and cannot be repeated at will they are hard to reseach.
Experiments on anything that has free will is much harder than on a thing. In general leading to statistical empirical not axiomatic models.
Things which are rare or unique are hard to study. Psychology experiments are predictable statistically to an extent, but it is inconceivable that these can be explained by underlying neuron action . So no axiomatic model.
It is all science.
It is all messy.
Most of it is perspiration not inspiration, looking for patterns and checking evidence.
Looking for pattens in galaxy shape, is just as much science as a controlled test to see "do you know who is ringing you by telephone"
Some is confirmed, some is not. A pattern in evidence is a pattern in evidence whether you can ever explain it.
One problem is scientists are people, not always objective and they have confirmation bias.
Sadly the scientific establishment promotes things it "Likes" out of all proportion to evidence. People are people.
Dawkins books speculate way beyond what he can know.
So... back to one example. It shows the stark reality of science.
So called Eucharistic miracles have a repeated pattern in evidence. But no model so they are a/
They happened. the question is what happened? Quantum effects, like Bell experiment, defy rational explanation so there is no reason that other evdience such as EM should not defy rationality or models too.
The fact phenomena cannot be explained, there is no hypothesis does not invalidate the evidence one iota.
It is valid science to research the samples, look for possible fraud or misinterpretation, but after that it IS scientific evidence..
That is way higher up the proof curve than abiogenesis which is g/ no experience of it, no model for it, and no certainty of whether , what where or how it happened.
Alhought it MIGHT be true. Nobody can say so from what is currently known. But It is valid science to research speculation.
But it is ALL science. A mess.
All a quest for what is true. Whether you like or not the outcome.
A lot of damage is done by science deciding what it "likes" a priori.
Like the ridicule given in newtons time to those who thought light was a wave, held science back for years.
What the newtob apologists did not get. A particle and a wave are just different models of a "thing". They are not a "thing" in themselves.
Science is a conceptual not just a procedural mess. It has to be. It reflects the world.
So I will start one about science itself.
My statement is Science is fundamentally messy.
It is not nearly the idealized process just comprised of "hypothesis, theory" taught to 8th graders.
So discuss.
Here an introduction.
As einstein said it "starts and finishes with experience."
So.
1. Much of science is trying to validate evidence, and looking for patterns in experience and data to pursue..
It is not straight forward and yesterdays triumph can be tomorrows failure. It becomes hard with beings with free will (like humans) , its easier on things , and things that can be repeated or do repeat naturally.
2/ There is also the axiomatic model. Trying to fit new evidence to it. So there is also a second track, which is start with the model, not experience, make extrapolations from it and look for validation with experience.
But broadly we have these categories.
a/ Patterns in Experience for which there may be no model . All experimental laws like ohm, or boyle are just a pattern that have restricted applicability.
b/ Patterns for which there is a model that works - the model is where theories live - take kinetic theory of gases, which accounts for boyles law. But the lack of such model or theory does not invalidate boyles law.
c/ Patterns for which the model does not work leading to speculation on why, take galaxy shape and speculation on possible missing mass
d/ Models for which there is not or not yet verified experience. Star formation is hard to confirm because early stages emit very little light so much of the evidence is indirect. Superstrings suppose many more dimensions which are near impossible to observe or test..
e/ Models which contradict other models, and are never likely to resolve, leading to arguments on the nature of science and reality. Quantum.
f/ Experience which has yet to repeat. All you can do is take evdience and file it. Wait for more instances.
G/ At the bottom of the chain is speculation for which there is neither model nor experience.
Some things repeat naturally, some things can be repeated in vivo.
But if they do not repeat often and cannot be repeated at will they are hard to reseach.
Experiments on anything that has free will is much harder than on a thing. In general leading to statistical empirical not axiomatic models.
Things which are rare or unique are hard to study. Psychology experiments are predictable statistically to an extent, but it is inconceivable that these can be explained by underlying neuron action . So no axiomatic model.
It is all science.
It is all messy.
Most of it is perspiration not inspiration, looking for patterns and checking evidence.
Looking for pattens in galaxy shape, is just as much science as a controlled test to see "do you know who is ringing you by telephone"
Some is confirmed, some is not. A pattern in evidence is a pattern in evidence whether you can ever explain it.
One problem is scientists are people, not always objective and they have confirmation bias.
Sadly the scientific establishment promotes things it "Likes" out of all proportion to evidence. People are people.
Dawkins books speculate way beyond what he can know.
So... back to one example. It shows the stark reality of science.
So called Eucharistic miracles have a repeated pattern in evidence. But no model so they are a/
They happened. the question is what happened? Quantum effects, like Bell experiment, defy rational explanation so there is no reason that other evdience such as EM should not defy rationality or models too.
The fact phenomena cannot be explained, there is no hypothesis does not invalidate the evidence one iota.
It is valid science to research the samples, look for possible fraud or misinterpretation, but after that it IS scientific evidence..
That is way higher up the proof curve than abiogenesis which is g/ no experience of it, no model for it, and no certainty of whether , what where or how it happened.
Alhought it MIGHT be true. Nobody can say so from what is currently known. But It is valid science to research speculation.
But it is ALL science. A mess.
All a quest for what is true. Whether you like or not the outcome.
A lot of damage is done by science deciding what it "likes" a priori.
Like the ridicule given in newtons time to those who thought light was a wave, held science back for years.
What the newtob apologists did not get. A particle and a wave are just different models of a "thing". They are not a "thing" in themselves.
Science is a conceptual not just a procedural mess. It has to be. It reflects the world.
Last edited: