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

Forums Articles Gallery Links

Register Login Members Calendar New Posts Search Chat Help

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?

Print

Print

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Is science good for anything other than technological advance?

To Mega Therion
Grand Moff

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 178

Posted 11/05/09 - 12:07 PM:	#21
kkiiji wrote: 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. I would agree with everything, except the idea that a pragmatic approach tells us nothing about reality. As I see it, a pragmatic approach is the only way in which we can make sense of reality. Scientists routinely say that the objects they study, from brains to quantum fields, are real. kkiiji wrote: 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. No scientist would claim that is the way things actually are because those are approximative models; strictly incorrect but useful in a limited sense. But I don't see that this would apply to what are, to the best of our knowledge, exact models.

exel+two
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 03, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 22

Posted 11/05/09 - 12:22 PM:	#22
ciceronianus wrote: "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? Science falls apart (as a means of explaining this "reality") in the sense that it puts all of its stock in proofs. The simple point that science misses is that proof needs proof. To turn science, even partially into a usable philosophy, you have to start making assumptions about what constitutes "fact", and as soon as you start making assumptions and basing your thinking on belief and assumption, you no longer have pure, undisputed, fact. Instead, you now have a belief, no different than any religion.

exel+two
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 03, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 22

Posted 11/05/09 - 12:30 PM:	#23
SittinWSocratesTiff wrote: 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'. Oh, my feelings have nothing to do with the beliefs of these people. They can believe whatever they want to and it won't bother me. The only thing that bothers me are the words and actions of the people themselves. It bothers me when people are so arrogant (and thick) that they don't even know they have a belief; when they "know" that just because a scientist said so, or just because "they did a study", that something is a "fact" (whatever that is)

exel+two
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 03, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 22

Posted 11/05/09 - 12:48 PM:	#24
To Mega Therion wrote: 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? First of all, I am not disputing the idea that science is the best way of obtaining "knowledge" (by your definition). In fact, its right there in the title: science is the best tool we have for learning new ways to interact successfully with our environment; it is the best tool we have for precipitating technological advance (science being, in this case, both the theoretical ideas thought up by "true" scientists and the application of those ideas by engineers). All I'm trying to say is that science is not the answer to our questions about the nature of the universe. Second, when did I say scientists were foundationalists (although I'm sure some of them are)? I'm saying some people are, and that's fine with me; they can believe whatever they want. The thing that pisses me off are people who are convinced that science is a way to know things for certain. And as for evidentialism; the problem is quite obvious if you think about it for two seconds: doesn't the "evidence" which evidentialism depends so wholly on need its own evidence; why wouldn't the proof need to be proven? Evidentialism falls IMMEDIATELY into foundationalism; you start to say, "Well, I guess proof doesn't need to be proven; I mean that would be an impossible loop of proofs for proofs, I guess we have no choice but to put our FAITH into the proof, to BELIEVE that it is right." But hey, wait a second, that sounds like foundationalism; does it not?

exel+two
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 03, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 22

Posted 11/05/09 - 12:55 PM:	#25
Slipstick Libby wrote: Why are you referring to science as a belief system? Science is a method for making accurate and precise predictions, nothing more. When does something cross the line from being a method, and becoming a belief system? As soon as anyone decides to believe it to be Ultimate Truth. Some people believe that science is the path to complete understanding. That's fine by me, but as soon as they start preaching their belief as fact (and saying that everything that comes out of a scientist's mouth is Ultimate Truth), then they start getting on my nerves.

exel+two
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 03, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 22

Posted 11/05/09 - 12:59 PM:	#26
Slipstick Libby wrote: 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. But, what exactly is it that makes something you see more real (or right) than something you think?

exel+two
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 03, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 22

Posted 11/05/09 - 01:13 PM:	#27
mark73 wrote: 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). You are only slightly off the mark. The thing you are forgetting is that humanity is comprised of individuals. Reality is perceived differently by different beings; the thing you forget is that each human is a different being. Science studies reality as the STUDIER perceives it. Meaning that "proof"; that thing that turns theories into "facts", is null and void. This is simply because that studier perceives things differently than you or I or any other human being or any member of species x. Thus science (as anything other than a tool for precipitating the effectiveness of human interaction with our environment) becomes belief, and many fail to see it.

exel+two
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 03, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 22

Posted 11/05/09 - 01:22 PM:	#28
jsidelko wrote: <!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> 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. Woah, woah, woah. Wait just a second. You've got me all mixed up there. I never said ANYTHING about not liking science of any kind. I'm sorry, I'm just really having trouble "catching your drift" (as the kids nowadays would say). The only purpose I can see for theoretical science would be to allow advances in applied science; and I can see you having a problem with that (that being the topic of this thread and all). All I was trying to say (and I continue to try) was that science (of any disposition) cannot be used to bring about an understanding (a knowledge) of our universe; science can give us theories and ideas, but not facts.

To Mega Therion
Grand Moff

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 178

Posted 11/05/09 - 01:23 PM:	#29
exel+two wrote: First of all, I am not disputing the idea that science is the best way of obtaining "knowledge" (by your definition). In fact, its right there in the title: science is the best tool we have for learning new ways to interact successfully with our environment; it is the best tool we have for precipitating technological advance (science being, in this case, both the theoretical ideas thought up by "true" scientists and the application of those ideas by engineers). All I'm trying to say is that science is not the answer to our questions about the nature of the universe. Second, when did I say scientists were foundationalists (although I'm sure some of them are)? I'm saying some people are, and that's fine with me; they can believe whatever they want. The thing that pisses me off are people who are convinced that science is a way to know things for certain. And as for evidentialism; the problem is quite obvious if you think about it for two seconds: doesn't the "evidence" which evidentialism depends so wholly on need its own evidence; why wouldn't the proof need to be proven? Evidentialism falls IMMEDIATELY into foundationalism; you start to say, "Well, I guess proof doesn't need to be proven; I mean that would be an impossible loop of proofs for proofs, I guess we have no choice but to put our FAITH into the proof, to BELIEVE that it is right." But hey, wait a second, that sounds like foundationalism; does it not? What I meant by 'interacting with our environment' was a bit broader than simply technological progress, though this is of course an important part. The point was that scientific theories help us make sense of our experience, predict what will happen in certain situations and so on. Well, that's a minor issue. What I would like to know is what you mean by the 'nature of the universe'? I ask this because these kind of questions usually turn out to be pseudoquestions. And I would like to know what you mean by 'certain'? If you mean some sort of absolutely established, infalible knowledge such a thing doesn't exist, so I agree with you to that extent. But science is a method of arriving at plausible theories; and since these are all that we have I would say that science retains its epistemically privileged status. And as for evidentialism, I guess it would depend on what you treat by evidence. I would say that the fact that a certain theory fulfils certain desiderata (accordance with our experience, predictive power, parsimony, yada yada yada) is evidence for that theory. I don't think I need to prove the methodology as well; it's obvious it works. Look, you have some good points against dogmatists, foundationalists and so on, but you need to stop frothing at the mouth.

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 11/05/09 - 01:25 PM:	#30
exel+two wrote: Science falls apart (as a means of explaining this "reality") in the sense that it puts all of its stock in proofs. The simple point that science misses is that proof needs proof. To turn science, even partially into a usable philosophy, you have to start making assumptions about what constitutes "fact", and as soon as you start making assumptions and basing your thinking on belief and assumption, you no longer have pure, undisputed, fact. Instead, you now have a belief, no different than any religion. Are you seriously claiming that science is no different than religion? I suspect not. But, If not, you consider just what it is you are saying. If you don't maintain that science is no different than religion, you must make a distinction between the two. It is that distinction that is significant, obviously. The distinction is that which makes it clear how science differs from religion. In the real world, proof is in consequences. Once we have proved that X, what need is there to prove we have proved that X? Seems a bit silly, does it not?
"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

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.