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

Posted 11/03/09 - 01:43 PM: Subject: Is science good for anything other than technological advance?	#1
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.

aletheist
Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2009
Location: Olathe, KS

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 620

Posted 11/03/09 - 02:49 PM:	#2
Just for the record, regarding the thread title--science does not accomplish technological advancements; engineering is required.
"Be attentive, Be intelligent, Be reasonable, Be responsible." - Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984)

kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire

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

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 1526

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/03/09 - 03:24 PM:	#3
Sadly science is all that's left, ever since Kant metaphysics has been murdered by philosophers. There are simply no other way to understand reality aside from science, and it's even quite wrong to say that scientific knowledge represents reality. What's really going on is that the very idea of some reality out there that could be understood has been debunked, so all that's left is theoretical models that allow us to explain the patterns between what we perceive and make predictions about what we will perceive. That's not reality, that's science, but considering that science is all we got it might as well be reality.
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.

exel+two
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 03, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 22

Posted 11/03/09 - 06:33 PM:	#4
aletheist wrote: Just for the record, regarding the thread title--science does not accomplish technological advancements; engineering is required. Sorry. Clarification required; I would lump all advances (i.e. technological, medical, etc., etc.) under "science". I suppose my use of words was not clear enough.

mark73
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 22, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 86

Posted 11/03/09 - 09:29 PM:	#5
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. Edited by mark73 on 11/03/09 - 09:43 PM

mark73
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 22, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 86

Posted 11/03/09 - 09:40 PM:	#6
kkiiji wrote: Sadly science is all that's left, ever since Kant metaphysics has been murdered by philosophers. There are simply no other way to understand reality aside from science, and it's even quite wrong to say that scientific knowledge represents reality. What's really going on is that the very idea of some reality out there that could be understood has been debunked, so all that's left is theoretical models that allow us to explain the patterns between what we perceive and make predictions about what we will perceive. That's not reality, that's science, but considering that science is all we got it might as well be reality. Why do you say Science does not represent reality? Just because the way an object appears depends on the subject as well as the object does not mean reality escapes us. At most it means their are different realities for different beings.

aletheist
Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2009
Location: Olathe, KS

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 620

Posted 11/04/09 - 06:24 AM:	#7
exel+two wrote: Sorry. Clarification required; I would lump all advances (i.e. technological, medical, etc., etc.) under "science". I suppose my use of words was not clear enough. Maybe you should specify exactly what you mean by "science". To me, the only thing that science advances is human knowledge of the natural world. Technology requires engineers, medicine requires physicians, etc.; and science provides only some of the knowledge that these professions employ.
"Be attentive, Be intelligent, Be reasonable, Be responsible." - Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984)

Dragohunter
illusion is persistent

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 08, 2009
Location: Why does it matteR?

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 160

Posted 11/04/09 - 10:15 AM:	#8
mark73 wrote: Why do you say Science does not represent reality? Just because the way an object appears depends on the subject as well as the object does not mean reality escapes us. At most it means their are different realities for different beings. Because science only represents effective models based on observations and abstract notions we use. We don't KNOW reality, we just base more and more accurate models as time passes. For the past several centuries of physics, we have yet to give an understanding of energy. We don't KNOW what it is, we just know how it affects us and how it can be used as a model. It might not even exist the way we know it.
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal." - Albert Einstein

kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire

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

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 1526

Posted 11/04/09 - 11:16 AM:	#9
mark73 wrote: Why do you say Science does not represent reality? Just because the way an object appears depends on the subject as well as the object does not mean reality escapes us. At most it means their are different realities for different beings. Because science is highly based on models that people pull straight out of their ass to explain discrepancies between empirical observations. If you take organic chemistry, you'd know just exactly how much stuff chemists pull out of their ass all the time. We clearly can't observe any of the mechanisms and interactions between molecules, we can only see the results and come up with something that would fit the pattern. Is what we came up with reality? All I can say is that it's highly pragmatic. This is even more the case with physics namely quantum mechanics. A vast array of infamous quantum contributors warn us by letting us know that quantum mechanics is simply scientific theories they pulled out of their ass to explain what is observed, and that it in no way represents reality. With Biology perhaps it's a little better, but considering how much biology relies on organic chemistry, it really isn't that much better. The bottom line is that there are severe limitations to our ability to observe things, thus we use what we observe to theorize "things" and "rules" that ought to be there in order to explain what we observe in a organized way. The only way to do this is pull these "things" and "rules" out of our ass, as Karl Popper once figured out.
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.

exel+two
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 03, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 22

Posted 11/04/09 - 12:13 PM:	#10
aletheist wrote: Maybe you should specify exactly what you mean by "science". To me, the only thing that science advances is human knowledge of the natural world. Technology requires engineers, medicine requires physicians, etc.; and science provides only some of the knowledge that these professions employ. Science, as you say is study of the natural world. But how can these professions function without studying the natural world? How can we advance in any way other than study of our world?

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.