Is scientific understanding based on predictive power?

[ryokan]

My question is whether if scientists were completely devoid of the basic physical data originally, whether they could still have the visual power to concpetualise?

I think that this question is related to History of Science. Physics and Math have evolutioned from clear, intuitive conceptions to more abstract, non-intuitive theories.

 

[Philocrat]

I think that this question is related to History of Science. Physics and Math have evolutioned from clear, intuitive conceptions to more abstract, non-intuitive theories.

1) Intuition needs some space to operate the components of concepts

2) Abstract needs some space to operate the components of concepts

2) Physical Action needs some space (external world) to operate the components of concepts

Some people might very well dispute this, but the reality of (1), (2) and (3) is that the logical structures of the spaces referred to in them may not necessarily differ. With regards to (1), I have always been sceptical of the very claim that we could derive concepts, let alone truths, independent of reason. And I am not still convinced that information of a concrete kind can pop out of intuition without any device of reason that requires clear spatio-temporal pathways or histories to be maintained throughout the process.

------------------
The spaces within which intuition, Abtract and phyical actions operate seem decisively to be logically structured in the same way. What distinguishes the three is a matter of their modes and speeds of operation. They may operate in different modes and speeds, does that make them to necessarily violate the apparatus of logic (The fundamental process of reconciling SEQUENTIALISM with SIMULTANEITY)?
-------------------

Could this not be construed otherwise?

 

[ryokan]

1) Intuition needs some space to operate the components of concepts

2) Abstract needs some space to operate the components of concepts

2) Physical Action needs some space (external world) to operate the components of concepts

Some people might very well dispute this, but the reality of (1), (2) and (3) is that the logical structures of the spaces referred to in them may not necessarily differ. With regards to (1), I have always been sceptical of the very claim that we could derive concepts, let alone truths, independent of reason. And I am not still convinced that information of a concrete kind can pop out of intuition without any device of reason that requires clear spatio-temporal pathways or histories to be maintained throughout the process.


Could this not be construed otherwise?

I think that your view is in some form kantian with respect to the concept of space. Are I right?

 

[Nereid]

I believe that we can use the term Science only when we talk about a conscious activity. Science searchs causes. It is reductive. Empirical knowledge is not enough to have Science. Empirical knowledge can be also explained in a mythological context.

Hmm, if you take a historical perspective, how then do you decide when 'science' began? Must it be fully formed (according to our understanding today) before it is honoured with a capital "S"? What then do we say about all that went before the nanosecond when 'science' began? That it is 'proto-science' perhaps?

Yes. Maths is Science. And a tool (calculus). And a language. There is of course a scientific, not mathematical language to communicate findings. But mathematical language would be the most adequate form of expression in Science. As Lord Kelvin said: "When you measure what you are speaking about and express it in numbers, you know something about it, but when you cannot express it in numbers your knowledge about is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind"

I think we differ on this point ... most of biology was indeed scientific before predator-prey equations, and how much maths is there in Origin of Species?

 

[ryokan]

Hmm, if you take a historical perspective, how then do you decide when 'science' began? Must it be fully formed (according to our understanding today) before it is honoured with a capital "S"? What then do we say about all that went before the nanosecond when 'science' began? That it is 'proto-science' perhaps?

I think that there isn't a clear dilemma Science - Not Science. There was a gradual transition from an empirical to a scientific knowledge, and there is growth in Science. We cannot talk about a neat begin of Science. There was a continuous (or rather discontinuous) advance in scientific methods and concepts, as well as an evolution from an empirical knowledge to general theories. There was Science with Newton (or Philosophy of Nature) and with Einstein, but I think difficult apply the term scientist to Paracelsus.

I think we differ on this point ... most of biology was indeed scientific before predator-prey equations, and how much maths is there in Origin of Species?

Yes. It was Science in Biology before equations, but Biology is "more scientific" when statistics can differentiate between noise and associations or when mathematical models allow to stablish predictions. It is also "more scientific" when it is based in controlled experiments.

An Medicine? I don't believe that we can talk on a scientific Medicine in the early 20 century, for example.

 

[RingoKid]

imgine our defintions of light if the human race were blind...

...modfied minds of the type 8 man suggest are already in evidence but not prevalent

give us time and all will be revealed...

 

[ryokan]

imgine our defintions of light if the human race were blind...

We are blind for radio waves. We haven't senses to radioactivity...

Nevertheless, we use radio to communicate and we use protection systems against ionizing radiations.

I don't believe that definition of light were so distinct if all we were blind. Of course, we wouldn't enjoy light, bu we probably know light as an electromagnetic wave and with its characteristics.

 

[RingoKid]

I beg to differ, for without the cumulative knowledge of light from observations going back to pre history our initial definitions could only have been of heat when the sun was out and cold when it was not

We wouldn't have been able to see the sun to ponder on the nature of seeing and light to start with.

Imagine then observing the full spectrum and magnification of all that there is. Would we see everything as Neo vision like the matrix with everything being bands of vibrating energy and what then of the effect of observing on the observable and the observer ?

 

[ryokan]

I beg to differ, for without the cumulative knowledge of light from observations going back to pre history our initial definitions could only have been of heat when the sun was out and cold when it was not

We wouldn't have been able to see the sun to ponder on the nature of seeing and light to start with.

Imagine then observing the full spectrum and magnification of all that there is. Would we see everything as Neo vision like the matrix with everything being bands of vibrating energy and what then of the effect of observing on the observable and the observer ?

We can imagine all we want. Our philosophy is dependent of our being. if we were intelligent fishes, we would see the world in a different form. I don't see any interest in these phantasies.

 

[Nereid]

I think that there isn't a clear dilemma Science - Not Science. There was a gradual transition from an empirical to a scientific knowledge, and there is growth in Science. We cannot talk about a neat begin of Science. There was a continuous (or rather discontinuous) advance in scientific methods and concepts, as well as an evolution from an empirical knowledge to general theories. There was Science with Newton (or Philosophy of Nature) and with Einstein, but I think difficult apply the term scientist to Paracelsus.

Yes. It was Science in Biology before equations, but Biology is "more scientific" when statistics can differentiate between noise and associations or when mathematical models allow to stablish predictions. It is also "more scientific" when it is based in controlled experiments.

Different is OK, gradual is OK, but then...

An Medicine? I don't believe that we can talk on a scientific Medicine in the early 20 century, for example.

Surely the most that can be said is 'the degree of science was lower in pre-20th century medicine [whatever that is] than in Newton's formulation of mechanics' ... as you've got a cline - two actually - you could (in principle) determine the degree of 'science' and (separately) 'empirical knowledge' in any given human endeavour.

 

[ryokan]

Different is OK, gradual is OK, but then...

And then... What?

Surely the most that can be said is 'the degree of science was lower in pre-20th century medicine [whatever that is] than in Newton's formulation of mechanics' ... as you've got a cline - two actually - you could (in principle) determine the degree of 'science' and (separately) 'empirical knowledge' in any given human endeavour.

I don't understand well that.
I agree with the first part: "the degree of science was lower in pre-20th century medicine [whatever that is] than in Newton's formulation of mechanics...
natural Science implies communication of experimental or observational findings. Medicine was scientific in the pre-20th only in its Natural History component: anatomic description, mainly at macroscopic level. But diagnosis and therapies were most based in philosophical, mythic or subjective impressions than in a minimal scientific knowledge.
I think that we cannot determine de degree of science and empirical knowledge in particular, inidividual, endeavours.

 

[Philocrat]

But what about a 'MONOPOID' who may not need any of the visual properties that the humans do? A monopoid is an imaginary being from an imaginary world permanently devoid of environmental dangers. That is, there is nothing to see, know and avoid! The place is simply a perfect state of being. Let's call it a 'MONOPOIDAL WORLD'. Supposing in such a world lights, colours, motion, asthetics, sound, pain, etc were no longer relevant? If you asnwered yes to this question, you would be admitting that all these properties that are available within the human system are fundamentally purposive in scope and in substance, and that there is no guarantee that in the end, should the humans were to structurally and functionally progress to a perfect state, these human properties may still be necessary. For there is nothing which logically rules out that in such a world these properties may not be made obsolete.

 

[Philocrat]

Yet, equally, there are those who would argue that only the most beautiful...or perhaps the most asthetically pleasant that would remain in the end, should the humans were to be lucky enough to structurally and functionally progress to a 'MONOPOIDAL STATE OF BEING'. Well, this is not ruled out either...and I guess any deficit would be purely an engineering one!

 

[ryokan]

Hi Philocrat,
Curiosity is important. Although or life needs were satisfied, curiosity could remain as a motor of change.

 

[Philocrat]

Hi Philocrat,
Curiosity is important. Although or life needs were satisfied, curiosity could remain as a motor of change.

Absolutely! However, any change aimed at perfecting must finally reduce curiosity to a permanent and everlasting pleasure! In this case, change would be nothing more than a natural but resulting consequence of defects in the original designs of things.

 

[ryokan]

Surely the most that can be said is 'the degree of science was lower in pre-20th century medicine [whatever that is] than in Newton's formulation of mechanics' ... as you've got a cline - two actually - you could (in principle) determine the degree of 'science' and (separately) 'empirical knowledge' in any given human endeavour.

In the pre-20t Medicine was neither scientific nor empirical knowledge.

 

[selfAdjoint]

In the pre-20t Medicine was neither scientific nor empirical knowledge.

Oh, I don't think that was true. Even Galen made observations and drew conclusions, and the Islamic physicians had a great deal of empirical knowedge. 19th century doctors also used empiricism, as in the discovery of ether, the discovery of bacteria (Pasteur), and so on.

 

[ryokan]

Oh, I don't think that was true. Even Galen made observations and drew conclusions, and the Islamic physicians had a great deal of empirical knowedge. 19th century doctors also used empiricism, as in the discovery of ether, the discovery of bacteria (Pasteur), and so on.

Although there were important medical discoveries in the 19th and before the 19th century, generally, in the 19th the practice of occidental Medicine wasn't precisely very scientific.
The microbial hunters were isolated epic cases. The germ theory of disease was a controversial idea and not yet widely accepted. Many medical practitioners still subscribed to the ancient theory of the "four humors" developed by the Roman physician Galen.
And the medical papers from 19th... were they in general scientific?
From my viewpoint, excepting some celebrities, the 19th's occidental Medicine was comparable to Astrology.
Which would you prefer: to be a patient in the Galen's Rome or to be a patient in the 19th in the Pasteur's France? Is there a great difference?

 

[Nereid]

Although there were important medical discoveries in the 19th and before the 19th century, generally, in the 19th the practice of occidental Medicine wasn't precisely very scientific.
The microbial hunters were isolated epic cases. The germ theory of disease was a controversial idea and not yet widely accepted. Many medical practitioners still subscribed to the ancient theory of the "four humors" developed by the Roman physician Galen.
And the medical papers from 19th... were they in general scientific?
From my viewpoint, excepting some celebrities, the 19th's occidental Medicine was comparable to Astrology.
Which would you prefer: to be a patient in the Galen's Rome or to be a patient in the 19th in the Pasteur's France? Is there a great difference?

So it seems from your response that 'being scientific' is a collective thing, possibly even (gasp!) a cultural thing (even a 'culturgen' or a 'meme'). It also seems that 'being scientific' isn't binary ... it can develop gradually, be partly scientific, etc.

BTW, when was the work done - in London? - that lead to the discovery of how collera (?) spread (infected wells?)? Wasn't that 19th C (or maybe 18th)? IIRC, the method used was almost textbook scientific!

 

[selfAdjoint]

BTW, when was the work done - in London? - that lead to the discovery of how collera (?) spread (infected wells?)? Wasn't that 19th C (or maybe 18th)? IIRC, the method used was almost textbook scientific!

Yes, I think that was early 19th century, 1820s or 1830s as I recall. You're right, it was a fine epidemiological study, still cited as a "heroes of old" account in modern courses.

 

[ryokan]

So it seems from your response that 'being scientific' is a collective thing, possibly even (gasp!) a cultural thing (even a 'culturgen' or a 'meme'). It also seems that 'being scientific' isn't binary ... it can develop gradually, be partly scientific, etc.

No.
There are medical problems or physical problems which can be understanded by scientific or non-scientific (mythic, for example) forms.
It cannot be said that a community or an individual was ever (or never) scientific. I believe that Kepler made astrological predictions. Nevertheless, his laws about planetary orbits were very important in Science.
The 19th Medicine was plagued with a lot of non-scientific beliefs, any of them remain in our century (homeopathy).
Nevertheless, there was important scientific advances in Microbiology, cellular theory and so on. That is out of discussion.

BTW, when was the work done - in London? - that lead to the discovery of how collera (?) spread (infected wells?)? Wasn't that 19th C (or maybe 18th)? IIRC, the method used was almost textbook scientific!

Yes Dr. Snow, 1854, London. I have found very interesting this link: http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/snow.html