Is science good for anything other than technological advance?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » Science » Is science good for anything other than technological advance? » Is science good for anything other than technological advance?

Is science good for anything other than technological advance?
Can science be a way of understanding our universe?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Is science good for anything other than technological advance?

exel+two
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 03, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 22

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/04/09 - 12:26 PM:	#11
mark73 wrote: Hi Excel. What is your background because you dont seem to like science. Everything has value provided its not misused. Understanding plants requires botany, stars astronomy, animals zoology, rocks geology etc. Do you seriously doubt this. The world we experience is understood through empirical investigation. This is practically a truism. If it is EXPERIENCED, it requires EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION (ie science). How else can you understand say a brain but by empirically investigating it? As for a complete understanding of the world...there is no such thing. Sorry, I think you may have missed my meaning; I have no problem with science, I have a problem with evidentialism/evidentialists. My point is that some people have put way to much philosophical stock in science, meaning that they believe that we can understand something simply by observation and experimentation. I totally agree that there is no such thing as a complete understanding of the world (in fact, I think that there is no such thing as complete understanding of anything), my problem is that way too many people don't. Science falls apart as a way of understanding things as soon as you consider that proof needs proof needs proof needs proof etc. etc.

ciceronianus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: USA

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1020

Last Blog: Trials in which "Failure is not an option"

Posted 11/04/09 - 01:35 PM:	#12
"Science falls apart" forsooth. It happens to do what we reasonably expect it to do quite well, does it not? And has done so, for some time. Rather better than most other things, in fact. It is in every respect a very successful human endeavor, probably the most successful. How does it "fall apart" in any meaningful sense?
"Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."--C.S. Peirce "There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Marcus Tullius Cicero "Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey

SittinWSocratesTiff
Student

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 02, 2009
Location: Strolling on the Absurd Side of the Street

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 65

Posted 11/04/09 - 02:06 PM:	#13
exel+two If what another person believes is something you allow to piss you off in this world you have chosen a war instead of a battle. The difficult aspect is that when you choose that war the battle is fought within you. Even if you do not accept what another persons perspective is the simple idea of respecting their perception would allow you to lower your level of frustration with one of the things that 'piss you off in this world'.

To Mega Therion
Grand Moff

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 178

Posted 11/04/09 - 02:07 PM:	#14
Well, first of all, as a way of obtaining knowledge (by which I mean theories that enable us to interact with our environment successfully), science works. What's more, none of the alternatives seem to do. Or do you think you could demonstrate otherwise? Second, no serious scientist I'm aware of is a foundationist; I would say that died out with the failure of Cartesian physics. And as for evidentialism, what exactly do you consider the problem with it? What alternative way of justification would you propose? This has potential to be a fun discussion; as it is, however, it's little more than a rant.

Slipstick Libby
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 28, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 28

Posted 11/04/09 - 05:06 PM:	#15
exel+two wrote: There are only a few things that piss me off in this world, but a person who believes that science is the final, irrefutable answer is one of them. How can anyone base their understanding of this universe on evidentialism or foundationalism? Some disciples of science have gotten pretty arrogant of late and I don't understand how they can truly believe that it is the key to complete understanding of reality. Why are you referring to science as a belief system? Science is a method for making accurate and precise predictions, nothing more.

Slipstick Libby
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 28, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 28

Posted 11/04/09 - 05:09 PM:	#16
exel+two wrote: Science falls apart as a way of understanding things as soon as you consider that proof needs proof needs proof needs proof etc. etc. You seem to misunderstand scientific method and the logic behind scientific method. It isn't a deductive sort that relies upon axioms. Its an inductive sort which relies upon observation. The truth of observation has been covered by Descartes. One cannot be deceived about pain.

mark73
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 22, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 86

Posted 11/04/09 - 07:53 PM:	#17
I'm aware that Kant said that things conform to our mental structures but this does not mean science does not study reality, Simply that reality can be perceived differently by different beings. The "thing in itself makes no sense". When I say us I mean humans. If people x believe the moon is made of cheese we can proof to them through science that it is not. Science studies reality as humans perceive it. If we come into contact with aliens I would not be suprised if they perceived reality in the same way(giving allowance for the fact that there science is more advanced).

mark73
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 22, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 86

Posted 11/04/09 - 07:59 PM:	#18
What does the concept "reality" mean to you kkiiii? Why does it have to be independent of the subject? What has science lost because of the attack on metaphysics? Nothing in my opinion.

jsidelko
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 08, 2009

Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 260

Posted 11/04/09 - 08:38 PM:	#19
Maybe you don't like applied science including such things as developing vaccines, water purifiers, antibiotics, etc There is also theoretical science that has broadened our understanding of our place in the cosmos.
thanatos

kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: San Diego, California

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 1526

Posted 11/05/09 - 11:58 AM:	#20
mark73 wrote: What does the concept "reality" mean to you kkiiii? Why does it have to be independent of the subject? What has science lost because of the attack on metaphysics? Nothing in my opinion. You missed my point and the point of the guy before me. Science itself doesn't even claim that it is the study of reality, it doesn't claim that its abstract theoretical models are reality, all it knows is that its models work. Science follows a highly pragmatic approach, and pragmatic approaches don't care much for what's actually out there. No scientist would claim that neutrons and protons are actually little balls surrounded by smaller electron balls, they're just models. No scientist would claim that cyclohexane molecules actually form a little chair in order to stabilize itself. These are all just models, models that help us make sense of the patterns in our observations and models that help us predict what will happen. In other words, science isn't really a direct account of what we observe, it is a string of models we pulled out of our ass that are inferred from what we observe. These models do not represent reality, scientists literately pull them out of their ass, Karl Popper called it some kind of moment of intuitive conjecture, in other words pull something out of your ass in a highly creative fashion. This has nothing to do with Kant, this has nothing to do with Phenomena and Noumena, this has everything to do with the very nature of science, a discipline being based on pragmatic models scientists pull out of their ass.
Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Pagliacci." Good joke, everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum... Curtains.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.