The Philosophy of Science

[Resha Caner]

In one thread of this forum @2PhiloVoid and I discussed the value of a thread on historical method. As I thought about it, I decided such a thread would quickly become untenable because most of the unbelievers in this forum exclusively argue a superiority of science (or what they think is science) regardless of the topic, and, as a result, tend to argue that history is scientific.

Therefore, science is the elephant in the room, and probably the better place to start.

As it happens, when I was an undergrad in history my advisor's specialty was the history of science. Given I already had an M.S. in engineering, she encouraged me to focus on the history of science as well. Though, in the end, I didn't go that direction, I did do considerable reading in the area. A major work I would recommend is Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues, by Curd & Cover. I intend to roughly follow the format of their book - as much as the fractal nature of Internet discussion will allow.

To that end, the first question tackled in that book is: What is science?

 

[miamited]

HI RC,

I could just google it and copy and paste some dictionary definition, but I choose to try and formulate what I believe science to be. So, in keeping with that postulate, here's my understanding:

Science is the body of knowledge gathered from observance of actions.. In the study and seeking of scientific data, one can offer theoretical possibilities that, if they can be proven by repeated testing, can become true scientific data. The single caveat that I hold for science is that it cannot prove miracles. By definition a miracle is something that is outside of the scope of natural explanation.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[SkyWriting]

To that end, the first question tackled in that book is: What is science?

It is the philosophy that nature is observable and can be documented and that what we observe is following "natural laws" that allow for our observations to be repeatable and we can document our observations and others can follow our procedures and if followed, they will see the same results that we did, so they can draw their own conclusions.

The real process of science

 

[Chesterton]

Isn't it just "figuring out how stuff works", for curiosity's sake or in order to create a useful technology?

 

[HTacianas]

In one thread of this forum @2PhiloVoid and I discussed the value of a thread on historical method. As I thought about it, I decided such a thread would quickly become untenable because most of the unbelievers in this forum exclusively argue a superiority of science (or what they think is science) regardless of the topic, and, as a result, tend to argue that history is scientific.

Therefore, science is the elephant in the room, and probably the better place to start.

As it happens, when I was an undergrad in history my advisor's specialty was the history of science. Given I already had an M.S. in engineering, she encouraged me to focus on the history of science as well. Though, in the end, I didn't go that direction, I did do considerable reading in the area. A major work I would recommend is Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues, by Curd & Cover. I intend to roughly follow the format of their book - as much as the fractal nature of Internet discussion will allow.

To that end, the first question tackled in that book is: What is science?

Why is science "the elephant in the room"?

 

[SkyWriting]

In one thread of this forum @2PhiloVoid and I discussed the value of a thread on historical method. As I thought about it, I decided such a thread would quickly become untenable because most of the unbelievers in this forum exclusively argue a superiority of science (or what they think is science) regardless of the topic, and, as a result, tend to argue that history is scientific.

History is not science. History is mans written record of events.
There is no such phrase as "Scientific History".

 

[SkyWriting]

Why is science "the elephant in the room"?

But what is that smell? Where does it come from? What causes it?

It's that faint smell of fake news.
It's the brylcreem smell of ego tainted data.

 

[HTacianas]

It's that smell.

But what is that smell? Where does it come from? What causes it?

Behold: Science.

 

[com7fy8]

What is science? I would say it is study of living and nonliving things, in order to discover principles which always will work the same way. The study can involve experiments and observation.

 

[expos4ever]

It is the philosophy that nature is observable and can be documented and that what we observe is following "natural laws" that allow for our observations to be repeatable and we can document our observations and others can follow our procedures and if followed, they will see the same results that we did, so they can draw their own conclusions.

The issue I have with this is the question of what status is granted to what we know about things like the Big Bang or evolution - things that are not repeatable, or, at best, only partially repeatable. In short, I believe the Big Bang and evolution theories are very well-supported by evidence and should be granted the credibility that we assign to other scientific theories.

If you pay attention here, you will see people trying to discredit these two theories by dismissing them as "non-scientific" because they are not repeatable. I think that is a bit of a cheat.

 

[Resha Caner]

Why is science "the elephant in the room"?

Because many unbelievers claim science is the only way of knowing. Then, when addressing something like history they face a conundrum. If science is the only way of knowing, then either history must be scientific or history must be dismissed.

Science is the body of knowledge gathered from observance of actions.. In the study and seeking of scientific data, one can offer theoretical possibilities that, if they can be proven by repeated testing, can become true scientific data. The single caveat that I hold for science is that it cannot prove miracles. By definition a miracle is something that is outside of the scope of natural explanation.

That's an OK description. I don't think science is the only way of knowing, and further think many human and spiritual matters are outside the bounds of science. So, I would agree with you on that.

 

[Resha Caner]

It is the philosophy that nature is observable and can be documented and that what we observe is following "natural laws" that allow for our observations to be repeatable and we can document our observations and others can follow our procedures and if followed, they will see the same results that we did, so they can draw their own conclusions.

Observation, drawing conclusions from those observations, documenting them, and doing so in a way that others can repeat … those are all crucial elements of science.

The issue I have with this is the question of what status is granted to what we know about things like the Big Bang or evolution - things that are not repeatable, or, at best, only partially repeatable. In short, I believe the Big Bang and evolution theories are very well-supported by evidence and should be granted the credibility that we assign to other scientific theories.

If you pay attention here, you will see people trying to discredit these two theories by dismissing them as "non-scientific" because they are not repeatable. I think that is a bit of a cheat.

Science is admittedly fuzzy around the edges. But it's extremely dangerous to concede the issue of repeatability. I don't think that's wise, and it's something people are much too prone to do. There is too much of a tendency to think that if we like an idea, it must be scientific and we have to find a way to shoehorn it in.

With that said, the reason the Big Bang and Evolution can defend themselves as science is because - though the actual events studied are not repeatable - the data measured from the aftermath of those events can be repeatedly measured, which opens the possibility of complementary lab experiments. If everyone agrees measurement of the events was done properly, and everyone agrees a lab experiment compliments those measurements, it arguably qualifies as science … but don't take that to mean I'm defending the Big Bang or Evolution. I just don't like people who are willing to sacrifice sound reasoning to tear something down.

Finally, the simple possession of evidence does not constitute science. Legal and historical methods employ evidence, yet they are methods unto themselves.

 

[Resha Caner]

History is not science.

True, but there is such a thing as historical method … as there are also other methods - legal methods, etc.

In fact, it is now widely accepted that there is not one Scientific Method, but many scientific methods.

 

[Resha Caner]

Isn't it just "figuring out how stuff works", for curiosity's sake or in order to create a useful technology?

That's fine as a colloquial understanding between friends. Unfortunately, when the battle lines are drawn, a bit more rigor is required. I'm not sure laymen fully understand the extreme rigor employed by professionals and the extreme care taken in meticulously phrasing their conclusions.

 

[Chesterton]

That's fine as a colloquial understanding between friends. Unfortunately, when the battle lines are drawn, a bit more rigor is required. I'm not sure laymen fully understand the extreme rigor employed by professionals and the extreme care taken in meticulously phrasing their conclusions.

I think I'd be comfortable going into battle with my description, but what battles, and what professionals are you talking about?

 

[Halbhh]

In one thread of this forum @2PhiloVoid and I discussed the value of a thread on historical method. As I thought about it, I decided such a thread would quickly become untenable because most of the unbelievers in this forum exclusively argue a superiority of science (or what they think is science) regardless of the topic, and, as a result, tend to argue that history is scientific.

Therefore, science is the elephant in the room, and probably the better place to start.

As it happens, when I was an undergrad in history my advisor's specialty was the history of science. Given I already had an M.S. in engineering, she encouraged me to focus on the history of science as well. Though, in the end, I didn't go that direction, I did do considerable reading in the area. A major work I would recommend is Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues, by Curd & Cover. I intend to roughly follow the format of their book - as much as the fractal nature of Internet discussion will allow.

To that end, the first question tackled in that book is: What is science?

Science is the effort to understand how nature works.

 

[Halbhh]

That's fine as a colloquial understanding between friends. Unfortunately, when the battle lines are drawn, a bit more rigor is required. I'm not sure laymen fully understand the extreme rigor employed by professionals and the extreme care taken in meticulously phrasing their conclusions.

Great point. But the most confused about science are those who have swallowed the false idea science is against faith, which results in endless tilting at windmills.

They feel they have to defend...God. As if they could.

He defends us.

 

[SkyWriting]

Observation, drawing conclusions from those observations, documenting them, and doing so in a way that others can repeat … those are all crucial elements of science.

.........ok....

 

[SkyWriting]

The issue I have with this is the question of what status is granted to what we know about things like the Big Bang or evolution - things that are not repeatable, or, at best, only partially repeatable. In short, I believe the Big Bang and evolution theories are very well-supported by evidence and should be granted the credibility that we assign to other scientific theories.

If you pay attention here, you will see people trying to discredit these two theories by dismissing them as "non-scientific" because they are not repeatable. I think that is a bit of a cheat.

Natural selection in action = I watched 15 little ducklings pared down to the two quickest ones in about 4 hours.

The Big Bang = total fabrication based on a large number of inferences. Very similar to Dark Matter theory.


Dark Matter SHOCK: Stephen Hawking was wrong

Everything we thought we knew about dark energy might be ...
Jan 6, 2020 - Startling new research suggests that dark energy might be nothing more than a simple measurement mistake.

 

[Resha Caner]

I think I'd be comfortable going into battle with my description, but what battles, and what professionals are you talking about?

Professionals - those trained in the methods of a particular discipline who then make that discipline their life's work. The battles come in many forms. There have been societal battles about science (e.g. Science Wars), national battles about science (e.g. Soviet Biology), inter-disciplinary battles about science (e.g. Elastic Constant Controversy), and personal battles about science (e.g. Newton vs. Hooke).