The Philosophy of Science

[expos4ever]

The Big Bang = total fabrication based on a large number of inferences.

Please make your case - no reasonable poster will take your word for this. Likewise, no reasonable poster should take my word for the pro big-bang position.

The difference, I suggest, is the evidence is on my side of this issue. And I am talking about the Big Bang, not dark matter.

 

[Chesterton]

Professionals - those trained in the methods of a particular discipline who then make that discipline their life's work.

I know the definition of a professional. I'm asking which disciplines.

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).

The first is a criticism lodged by Postmodernists. Who could possibly think that's even worth addressing? They'll argue with 2 + 2 = 4.

The second doesn't seem worth arguing either. Is anyone really willing to argue that truth should be what we want to be true? I mean, besides a Marxist?

The third (which I'm only gleaning from a couple of paragraphs of the linked excerpt) sounds like a matter of interpretation similar to the problem of QM interpretation. I don't see any battle about science there, but just disagreement about speculating on what science doesn't yet know.

The fourth is, as you note, a personal battle. The history of science is full of those, and they can get quite nasty.

I'm sorry, but I don't really know what your OP is about.

 

[Resha Caner]

The first is a criticism lodged by Postmodernists. Who could possibly think that's even worth addressing? They'll argue with 2 + 2 = 4.

The second doesn't seem worth arguing either. Is anyone really willing to argue that truth should be what we want to be true? I mean, besides a Marxist?

I think all of these go deeper than you're acknowledging. Though they may seem silly to you, leaving them unaddressed is dangerous. Though they may eventually collapse due to their own incoherence, they leave a vast swath of suffering in their wake. The Soviet Union, etc. was not an idle threat. It becomes an Edmund Burke sort of thing.

The third (which I'm only gleaning from a couple of paragraphs of the linked excerpt) sounds like a matter of interpretation similar to the problem of QM interpretation. I don't see any battle about science there, but just disagreement about speculating on what science doesn't yet know.

It is similar to QM interpretation as well as the Parallel Postulate controversy, but this one is near and dear to my heart since it impinges on engineering, and strikes at one of the key assumptions of science - that numbers are descriptive of our world, thereby allowing science to be predictive. If you don't live through something like this, or don't fully understand the historical context, it is easy to miss the shock wave this incident sent through the scientific world.

This predated QM; material scientists had simply been following the math to its logical conclusion. Then they hit a fork in the road - there was more than one answer. How can that be? How can the numbers describe more than one possible world - more than one reality? In our post Star Trek world, this doesn't seem shocking, but at the time it was huge.

What I find sad about it is the casual way people bring up alternate realities now, as if it's no big deal. Then they'll turn on a dime and call Christianity incoherent. Oy. It's an intellectual laziness that too many think is acceptable.

The fourth is, as you note, a personal battle. The history of science is full of those, and they can get quite nasty.

Again, there was a crucial philosophical battle at the heart of Newton and Hooke's disagreement that seems to get lost in the bitterness that developed from their ego driven, chest-thumping arguments. Further, there was a 3rd entry in the argument (Jean Buridan), who is all but forgotten.

The argument centered on what would be the fundamental assumption of physics. What is the first cause, and thereby the primary foundation of reality? This is far and away my favorite philosophical issue of science, and a debate that continues on through Einstein and Mach into even my own work.

I'm sorry, but I don't really know what your OP is about.

Most of the above is just things I find interesting about science - I said it because you asked. But if you want to know what the OP is about, it's post #11.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Science is not the end all some make it out to be. IOW "If science says something is a fact, it's a fact" is not necessarily a fact.

Science is no more than the opinion drawn by people from their study of the natural. Or in it's most basic form, or at least it boils down to, Science is opinion.

So, to say science says it's so, then it must be a fact, actually means it's one or a group of persons opinion it's a fact, when in reality that may not be the truth at all because it's still mere opinion.And at the same time their opinion may well lead to something being a fact.

Or, calling it science does not make something true/fact, proof makes it a fact. Of course there are some who will tell us science proves nothing, but they are usually people with an agendas that is so frail, it requires confusion/changing our normal understanding of things in order to make that agenda appear to be a fact.

And that's what science is all about, Charlie Brown.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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?

That's strange---no skeptics have thus far have alighted upon this here thread of yours, Resha. Either they are in agreement with most of what you're bringing up or .... (and surely not) they're afraid to say something that might make their position seem less than tenable?

Either way, thank you for presenting such a useful and relevant thread. Besides, I always like it when I can learn a little something extra from some other brother or sister who knows just a little bit more than I do about some topic (sometimes, a lot more!)

 

[FireDragon76]

Atheists that argue from a perspective of scientism are just being philosophically naive. Even if science is a compelling account of the world (and it is, to a certain extent), Karl Popper's notion of falsifiability and Kant's epistemology places limits on what science can tell us about reality.

 

[FireDragon76]

Science is not the end all some make it out to be. IOW "If science says something is a fact, it's a fact" is not necessarily a fact.

Science is no more than the opinion drawn by people from their study of the natural. Or in it's most basic form, or at least it boils down to, Science is opinion.

Science is more than just an opinion. It's a powerful set of inferences built upon observations.

Likewise, all a religion ultimately really has like Christianity or Islam is faith, not certain knowledge. There is a tradeoff. Sure, science may not be able to elucidate transcendent truths, but there's nothing in religion that necessarily compels belief or assent, either. Science's weaknesses are not a Christian mandate for triumphalism. They are instead suggestive of humility in the face of what is ultimately unknown.

 

[Chesterton]

I think all of these go deeper than you're acknowledging. Though they may seem silly to you, leaving them unaddressed is dangerous. Though they may eventually collapse due to their own incoherence, they leave a vast swath of suffering in their wake. The Soviet Union, etc. was not an idle threat. It becomes an Edmund Burke sort of thing.

No, I agree that that they're dangerous. And on the whole, I don't think nonsense tends to collapse under its incoherence. Individual pockets collapse but it always seems to pop up in a new formulation in another time and place. As far as addressing them, I guess what you meant by "professionals" is philosophers, academics, intellectuals? I mean I hope engineers aren't debating this stuff. I don't want to travel across a bridge designed by a postmodernist engineer.

It is similar to QM interpretation as well as the Parallel Postulate controversy, but this one is near and dear to my heart since it impinges on engineering, and strikes at one of the key assumptions of science - that numbers are descriptive of our world, thereby allowing science to be predictive. If you don't live through something like this, or don't fully understand the historical context, it is easy to miss the shock wave this incident sent through the scientific world.

This predated QM; material scientists had simply been following the math to its logical conclusion. Then they hit a fork in the road - there was more than one answer. How can that be? How can the numbers describe more than one possible world - more than one reality? In our post Star Trek world, this doesn't seem shocking, but at the time it was huge.

What I find sad about it is the casual way people bring up alternate realities now, as if it's no big deal. Then they'll turn on a dime and call Christianity incoherent. Oy. It's an intellectual laziness that too many think is acceptable.

I agree. I think for some there's just zero tolerance of any idea that smacks of a previously known religious idea, unless they can couch it in their own non-religious terms.

Again, there was a crucial philosophical battle at the heart of Newton and Hooke's disagreement that seems to get lost in the bitterness that developed from their ego driven, chest-thumping arguments. Further, there was a 3rd entry in the argument (Jean Buridan), who is all but forgotten.

The argument centered on what would be the fundamental assumption of physics. What is the first cause, and thereby the primary foundation of reality? This is far and away my favorite philosophical issue of science, and a debate that continues on through Einstein and Mach into even my own work.

I didn't know their disagreement was also philosophical.

Most of the above is just things I find interesting about science - I said it because you asked. But if you want to know what the OP is about, it's post #11.

Okay. Well I'd like to still stick with my original description, except I might make it a bit more accurate by saying science is for figuring out stuff we can perceive with the five senses (and with instruments which extend the senses). So yes, I see no rational reason to assume that all of ultimate reality has to be apprehended by our senses. That would seem to be an arrogant, human-centric assumption based on nothing, really.

 

[FireDragon76]

No, I agree that that they're dangerous. And on the whole, I don't think nonsense tends to collapse under its incoherence. Individual pockets collapse but it always seems to pop up in a new formulation in another time and place. As far as addressing them, I guess what you meant by "professionals" is philosophers, academics, intellectuals? I mean I hope engineers aren't debating this stuff. I don't want to travel across a bridge designed by a postmodernist engineer.

Philosophy and sciences like physics or chemistry don't even deal with the same subject matter. That they have different methods is understandable, as a result.

 

[Chesterton]

Philosophy and sciences like physics or chemistry don't even deal with the same subject matter. That they have different methods is understandable, as a result.

Yes of course but I think the person I responded to is an engineer, and it sounded as if he's saying he deals in such debates, which is why I asked what professionals he's talking about. I may have misunderstood him though.

 

[Resha Caner]

Yes of course but I think the person I responded to is an engineer, and it sounded as if he's saying he deals in such debates, which is why I asked what professionals he's talking about. I may have misunderstood him though.

Yes, there was a bit of a misunderstanding. You connected 2 statements I had not intended to connect. But the fault is mine due to the way I wrote it. I understand why you read it as you did.

My reference to "professionals" was simply a generalization of all professionals who use science in their work.

Since, however, you asked a specific question about engineers, in general engineers do not engage in such debates. I'm the oddball and I've gotten pushback against my views. Funny thing is, there do happen to be quite a few things built upon my views. Bottom line, my colleagues are happy to use my results, but often reject the philosophy that took me there.

 

[quatona]

Because many unbelievers claim science is the only way of knowing.

Do they??

 

[Resha Caner]

Do they??

Yes. I didn't say all, and I don't know your position, but many of the unbelievers I've encountered make that exact statement.

 

[quatona]

Yes. I didn't say all, and I don't know your position, but many of the unbelievers I've encountered make that exact statement.

I would love to see, say, five quotes of those many that make that exact statement. OK, three will do.

 

[Resha Caner]

I would love to see, say, five quotes of those many that make that exact statement. OK, three will do.

CF has a search function.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

CF has a search function.

... now, now, Resha! You know no one wants you to refer to the 'H word' around here ... !

 

[quatona]

CF has a search function.

I´m not going to do your work for you.

 

[Resha Caner]

I´m not going to do your work for you.

OK.

 

[quatona]

OK.

...so your claim remains unsubstatiated.

 

[Resha Caner]

...so your claim remains unsubstatiated.

For you, yes. My impression is that is the case for any conversation we've ever had.