Post by Progenitor A on Jan 20, 2015 17:51:42 GMT 1
People talk on this board as if these two concepts are the nearest to apotheosis that the human spirit can attain, as if the art of science and the practitioners of science are impeccably disinterested, seeking evidence and impartially weighing it to arrive at astonishing conclusions that are above criticism and causing some of the non-scientific to the conclude that scientists are the sentinels guarding the Holy Grail of true knowledge
I believe that science is rarely like that
It is more like everyday activities where occurrences lead us all to construct an underlying hypothesis based on what we observe, we then proceed to defend our somewhat shaky hypotheses, not to the death, but certainly flying in the face of logic and contrary evidence
It is quite an amazing fact that in the history of science, scientists, even in their great discoveries are more often wrong than right. Indeed at any point in time it is possible to say with a fair degree of certainty that the prevailing science is wrong and will be proven to be wrong at some time in the future
I contend that if you look at the great achievements in science, then very few withstand the test of time
Indeed science often resembles squabbling Message Board, with scientists adopting intransigent positions and seeking to discredit their opponents by personal attacks
One does not have to look far to see this in action – the AGW controversy is a good example
Only in general does Poppers model of science apply – the search to discredit hypotheses – certainly that search goes on, but often it is used a s a means to discredit the hypothesiser rather than the hypothesis
And prominent scientists often say very daft things that do not bear logical scrutiny – Dawkins and Hawkings for example have done so (without apology)
So science cannot really be regarded as the abstract sentinel guarding the shrine of truth, but just another gaggle of humans with all the usual frailties and hubris of any other group of humans, but a group that occasionally throws up ideas that change the direction of humanity
So what is science?
To me it is simply observing the natural world and making hypotheses about how or why phenomena occur. This is accompanied by frenzied attempts to discredit the hypothesiser at all costs – and this often venomous pursuit does often lead to progress in science, where an hypothesis must be rejected and a new hypothesis adopted to replace it
But simply to observe the natural world, make hypotheses based upon our observations, then attempt ways of testing those hypotheses is simply inadequate to describe science, because it also describes many other mundane activities, such as a technician diagnosing a fault, a doctor diagnosing a disease, a detective solving a crime, an engineer finding a solution to an engineering problem
What differentiates it from other activities that use the (so-called)’scientific method?
Well let’s look at some of the ‘non-scientific’ tasks that use the scientific method.
They have one thing in common – they do not set out to derive a general principle that has never been established before. They have a clear objective that has one purpose –to find a solution to a problem. The solution that they find may establish a general principle, but that is not (generally) the purpose of the activity
Science on the other hand does seek to establish general principles that will apply outside their particular work of the moment to other fields and other times
So science might be defined as the application of the scientific method to purposefully derive general principles about the nature of the world, principles that will apply beyond the time and specific character of their current investigation
Well that definition suits me!
Scientists are obviously people who do that!
The odd thing about science (to me) is that general principles about the nature of the world can be derived without reference to the world!
Isn’t that odd now. True tho’!
I believe that science is rarely like that
It is more like everyday activities where occurrences lead us all to construct an underlying hypothesis based on what we observe, we then proceed to defend our somewhat shaky hypotheses, not to the death, but certainly flying in the face of logic and contrary evidence
It is quite an amazing fact that in the history of science, scientists, even in their great discoveries are more often wrong than right. Indeed at any point in time it is possible to say with a fair degree of certainty that the prevailing science is wrong and will be proven to be wrong at some time in the future
I contend that if you look at the great achievements in science, then very few withstand the test of time
Indeed science often resembles squabbling Message Board, with scientists adopting intransigent positions and seeking to discredit their opponents by personal attacks
One does not have to look far to see this in action – the AGW controversy is a good example
Only in general does Poppers model of science apply – the search to discredit hypotheses – certainly that search goes on, but often it is used a s a means to discredit the hypothesiser rather than the hypothesis
And prominent scientists often say very daft things that do not bear logical scrutiny – Dawkins and Hawkings for example have done so (without apology)
So science cannot really be regarded as the abstract sentinel guarding the shrine of truth, but just another gaggle of humans with all the usual frailties and hubris of any other group of humans, but a group that occasionally throws up ideas that change the direction of humanity
So what is science?
To me it is simply observing the natural world and making hypotheses about how or why phenomena occur. This is accompanied by frenzied attempts to discredit the hypothesiser at all costs – and this often venomous pursuit does often lead to progress in science, where an hypothesis must be rejected and a new hypothesis adopted to replace it
But simply to observe the natural world, make hypotheses based upon our observations, then attempt ways of testing those hypotheses is simply inadequate to describe science, because it also describes many other mundane activities, such as a technician diagnosing a fault, a doctor diagnosing a disease, a detective solving a crime, an engineer finding a solution to an engineering problem
What differentiates it from other activities that use the (so-called)’scientific method?
Well let’s look at some of the ‘non-scientific’ tasks that use the scientific method.
They have one thing in common – they do not set out to derive a general principle that has never been established before. They have a clear objective that has one purpose –to find a solution to a problem. The solution that they find may establish a general principle, but that is not (generally) the purpose of the activity
Science on the other hand does seek to establish general principles that will apply outside their particular work of the moment to other fields and other times
So science might be defined as the application of the scientific method to purposefully derive general principles about the nature of the world, principles that will apply beyond the time and specific character of their current investigation
Well that definition suits me!
Scientists are obviously people who do that!
The odd thing about science (to me) is that general principles about the nature of the world can be derived without reference to the world!
Isn’t that odd now. True tho’!