The Philosophy of Science

  • Thread starter John Jones
  • Start date
  • #1
34
0
Science describes three types of object. The first two are those that can be hidden - material objects, and those that are necessarilly hidden - quantum objects. Thus, we have an independent source supporting Popper's* view that science is the domain of the empirically falsifiable, as hidden objects are a source of falsification and are the objects of science. Empirical is, in effect, the domain of the hideable.

There are other types of objects that are not hideable, hence not empirical or subject to falsification or Popperian doubt. Such objects are numerous, they include colours, sounds, and smells.

The third class of object of science is the supernatural object. This is a non-Popperian postulate of science that has been designed. There are two reasons for this design.
1) to discredit mystical practices and ideas,
2) to establish causal relationships on the basis of non-empirical associations.

The supernatural object is not a mystical object. The mystical object belongs to the class of objects that vanish and appear without empirical redress. On the other hand, the derogatory supernatural object of science changes its form between the mystical object, and the empirical or hideable object, and vice versa; for example, the idea that gods physically cause thunder.

The other, causal/associative, supernatural object of science also changes form supernaturally but finds a role in justifying certain studies of science, such as psychiatry where brain is said to cause mind in what is at root a supernatural causation.

Science, then, supports three types of object. Two of these are the hideables, the third is the supernatural object of which science describes two types.

---------------------
(* Popper:
But I shall certainly admit a system as empirical or scientific only if it is capable of being tested by experience. These considerations suggest that not the verifiability but the falsifiability of a system is to be taken as a criterion of demarcation. In other words: I shall not require of a scientific system that it shall be capable of being singled out, once and for all, in a positive sense; but I shall require that its logical form shall be such that it can be singled out, by means of empirical tests, in a negative sense: it must be possible for an empirical scientific system to be refuted by experience. (1959)
)
 
Last edited:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,844
711
Science really does have nothing to say on the supernatural. I think you are making this far more abstract than an explanation of science needs to be.

Empirical science works to build predictive models with explanatory power. We take an observation of a phenomenon, build a hypothesis, perform experiments and conclude from the results.

By definition science deals with the natural. Supernatural is a word that does not make sense in science, if it exists it can be studied and understood.
 
  • #3
150
0
i teach my son how to use logic so he is prepared to deal with most problems. for the rest we have a god. scientific method will only take you so far, then you have to rely on the unknown to deal with the unknown. i find science to be lacking. it can tell me the process by which i see a photo but fails to explain why i feel a crushing nostalgia at the sight of it. whats worse it doesnt even try. it cant be quantified so it doesnt exist. that is an approach which doesnt sit well with me. on the other hand in times of dire need a god has come through for me. i've been given shabby theories about statistical anomalies, delusion or even coincidence. i dont need an explination. i asked and it was taken care of. i have yet to get that from science.
 
  • #4
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,844
711
i find science to be lacking. it can tell me the process by which i see a photo but fails to explain why i feel a crushing nostalgia at the sight of it. whats worse it doesnt even try. it cant be quantified so it doesnt exist.
This is totally untrue. The entire field of psychology is devoted towards the study of human behaviours like this, behavioural and cognitive neuroscience is investigating such phenomenon also. Simply because science does not have an answer yet does not mean that the subject cannot be scientific so we must rely on illogical mystical feelings. An unknown is an unknown
 
  • #5
150
0
This is totally untrue. The entire field of psychology is devoted towards the study of human behaviours like this, behavioural and cognitive neuroscience is investigating such phenomenon also. Simply because science does not have an answer yet does not mean that the subject cannot be scientific so we must rely on illogical mystical feelings. An unknown is an unknown
sorry i was on a god kick this mornin. i believe in a god. i believe in science. as a species could we become smart enough to insure the conditions for life happen again. say after a bounce or crunch or perhaps heatdeath? that would satisfy my definition of god and science would do the trick to accomplish it.
 
  • #6
Math Is Hard
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,527
28
Science describes three types of object.
Hello John,

When did "Science" say this?

And, by the way, I am counting 4, maybe 5, types on your list:
the (2) "hideables", the (1) "unhideable", and the (1) supernatural (with two subtypes?).

What does it mean to be hideable, and what makes colors, sounds, and smells not hideable?
 
  • #7
2,685
22
i teach my son how to use logic so he is prepared to deal with most problems. for the rest we have a god.
By 'we' I assume you mean you and your family? Certainly doesn't apply to me.
scientific method will only take you so far, then you have to rely on the unknown to deal with the unknown.
Nonsense. What does that even mean?
i find science to be lacking.
In what way?
it can tell me the process by which i see a photo but fails to explain why i feel a crushing nostalgia at the sight of it.
Why must science be able to tell you this? That isn't the purpose of it. Why do people keep discounting science because it doesn't know something? (See signature for my exact thoughts on that matter.)

Regardless, there are many, many people in a host of fields attempting discover exactly what you describe there.
whats worse it doesnt even try.
Yes it does, as above.
it cant be quantified so it doesnt exist.
Huh?

You can apply scientific method to anything - from your findings you come to conclusions - people repeat and confirm / disprove your conclusions. If the tests don't 'find' anything, that doesn't mean science just gives up. It just doesn't have anything to say on the matter at that time - without evidence, science doesn't say anything.
that is an approach which doesnt sit well with me.
As above, it doesn't exist.
on the other hand in times of dire need a god has come through for me. i've been given shabby theories about statistical anomalies, delusion or even coincidence. i dont need an explination. i asked and it was taken care of. i have yet to get that from science.
Electric supply, medicine, water supply, gas supply, transportation, etc etc etc - let's not play games, if it wasn't for science the modern world wouldn't exist. We get a lot (if not everything) from science and it's ridiculous to say you haven't had anything from science in a "asked and received" kind of way.

I'll not comment on the god side of things, suffice to say it isn't a welcome discussion of mine.
 
  • #8
2,685
22
Hello John,

When did "Science" say this?

And, by the way, I am counting 4, maybe 5, types on your list:
the (2) "hideables", the (1) "unhideable", and the (1) supernatural (with two subtypes?).

What does it mean to be hideable, and what makes colors, sounds, and smells not hideable?
Before I comment on the OP, I'd also like to have this clarified.
 
  • #9
34
0
i teach my son how to use logic so he is prepared to deal with most problems. for the rest we have a god. scientific method will only take you so far, then you have to rely on the unknown to deal with the unknown. i find science to be lacking. it can tell me the process by which i see a photo but fails to explain why i feel a crushing nostalgia at the sight of it. whats worse it doesnt even try. it cant be quantified so it doesnt exist. that is an approach which doesnt sit well with me. on the other hand in times of dire need a god has come through for me. i've been given shabby theories about statistical anomalies, delusion or even coincidence. i dont need an explination. i asked and it was taken care of. i have yet to get that from science.
Because your text doesn't use capital letters I find it very disconcerting to read, almost straightaway. It's very distractiing to finding out what you want to say.
I will look at it again.
 
  • #10
34
0
Science really does have nothing to say on the supernatural. I think you are making this far more abstract than an explanation of science needs to be.

Empirical science works to build predictive models with explanatory power. We take an observation of a phenomenon, build a hypothesis, perform experiments and conclude from the results.

By definition science deals with the natural. Supernatural is a word that does not make sense in science, if it exists it can be studied and understood.
I said what science had to say about the supernatural. Honestly, look at it again.
 
  • #11
34
0
Hello John,

When did "Science" say this?

And, by the way, I am counting 4, maybe 5, types on your list:
the (2) "hideables", the (1) "unhideable", and the (1) supernatural (with two subtypes?).

What does it mean to be hideable, and what makes colors, sounds, and smells not hideable?
When did science say this? Science hasn't said it. It wouldn't be empirically testable. Science can't say it.

And, by the way, I am counting 4, maybe 5, types on your list:
the (2) "hideables", the (1) "unhideable", and the (1) supernatural (with two subtypes?).
Science doesn't deal with the non-hideables, like colours and sounds. These are non-hideable in that they vanish when the hideable is hidden. On the other hand, the hideable -materials - don't vanish when they are hidden.

There are more than four or five types of object. I am able to consider only one of four or five of these types, but won't introduce it here.
 
  • #12
34
0
Before I comment on the OP, I'd also like to have this clarified.
Then, look at the OP, look at the OP.
 
  • #13
2,685
22
I said what science had to say about the supernatural. Honestly, look at it again.
Science doesn't have anything to say about the supernatural. End of story.

Science cannot form an 'opinion' without something to form it with. Without evidence (anecdotes are not evidence) it cannot say anything, so it doesn't.
Science doesn't deal with the non-hideables, like colours and sounds.
Uh what? Science most certainly does deal with those items.
These are non-hideable in that they vanish when the hideable is hidden. On the other hand, the hideable -materials - don't vanish when they are hidden.

There are more than four or five types of object. I am able to consider only one of four or five of these types, but won't introduce it here.
You still haven't clarified what those terms mean. Repeating them over and over in a circular description doesn't help.

RE Bolded: What you said there = "they can't be hidden because they disappear when the hideable is hidden" - what the heck does that mean? If something disappears when something else is hidden, it most certainly is "hideable". Of course, without clarification of the phrases you use, I'm taking hideable to mean "you can hide it".
Then, look at the OP, look at the OP.
I have, the above stands.
 
  • #14
Math Is Hard
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,527
28
When did science say this? Science hasn't said it. It wouldn't be empirically testable. Science can't say it.
I was asking about your opening comment where you stated:

Science describes three types of object.
I want to know where that came from.
 
  • #15
alt
Gold Member
202
0
Also, JJ, in your OP you said;

The third class of object of science is the supernatural object. This is a non-Popperian postulate of science that has been designed. There are two reasons for this design.
1) to discredit mystical practices and ideas,
2) to establish causal relationships on the basis of non-empirical associations.


Which could be contracted to say;

The third class of object of science .. the supernatural object .. has been designed .. to discredit mystical practices and ideas ..

A supernatural object has been designed to discredit mystical practices and ideas ???

I don't get it. And designed by who or what ?

I suggest you may have to be a little less quixotic for others to engage in your points of interest.
 
  • #16
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,934
2,425
Look! Wait! what's that?

The Lock-ness Monster? :tongue:
 
  • #17
34
0
Science doesn't have anything to say about the supernatural. End of story.

Science cannot form an 'opinion' without something to form it with. Without evidence (anecdotes are not evidence) it cannot say anything, so it doesn't.


Uh what? Science most certainly does deal with those items.


You still haven't clarified what those terms mean. Repeating them over and over in a circular description doesn't help.

RE Bolded: What you said there = "they can't be hidden because they disappear when the hideable is hidden" - what the heck does that mean? If something disappears when something else is hidden, it most certainly is "hideable". Of course, without clarification of the phrases you use, I'm taking hideable to mean "you can hide it".


I have, the above stands.
What you said there = "they can't be hidden because they disappear when the hideable is hidden" - what the heck does that mean?
Hideable means you can hide it. You cannot hide a colour. Colour is not a property of the hideable object. When the the room is dark the red object is not red, nor was it any colour.
 
  • #18
34
0
I was asking about your opening comment where you stated:



I want to know where that came from.
It was me. I said that science had 3 types of object.


why isn't the multiquote button still not working.
 
  • #19
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,934
2,425
John Jones, you should do some reading so that the vocabulary, terminology and concepts you use are more in line with those that you wish to discuss things with.

You're kind of way out there and not making a lot of sense.
 
  • #20
34
0
Also, JJ, in your OP you said;

The third class of object of science is the supernatural object. This is a non-Popperian postulate of science that has been designed. There are two reasons for this design.
1) to discredit mystical practices and ideas,
2) to establish causal relationships on the basis of non-empirical associations.


Which could be contracted to say;

The third class of object of science .. the supernatural object .. has been designed .. to discredit mystical practices and ideas ..

A supernatural object has been designed to discredit mystical practices and ideas ???

I don't get it. And designed by who or what ?

I suggest you may have to be a little less quixotic for others to engage in your points of interest.
I already gave an example of science's discreditation of mystical practices and ideas, and named the type of objert that they, science, had created to help them do it - they created the supernatural object.
 
  • #21
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,934
2,425
I already gave an example of science's discreditation of mystical practices and ideas, and named the type of objert that they, science, had created to help them do it - they created the supernatural object.
Who is "they"?
Science?
Science ... people ... created the supernatural?

What are you reading?
 
  • Like
Likes maria x
  • #22
34
0
Who is "they"?
Science?
Science ... people ... created the supernatural?

What are you reading?
"Science" is the name of a breakaway cult. Just as society is the name of what's left. People.
 
  • #23
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,934
2,425
I think you're on the wrong forum.
 
  • #24
30,138
6,574
"Science" is the name of a breakaway cult.
Science is the name of a method of inductive inference, the scientific method. Science talks about two things: theories and experimental data. There is no mention in the scientific method of "types of objects" or "hideable" anything.
 
  • #25
150
0
a galaxy expanding away faster than the speed of light will eventually be outside our observable universe. with no way to observe it or experiment with it, it just becomes a point of speculation. no longer in the realm of science because of our limiitations. the same goes for the origins of our universe. theories on this are just speculation as we lack the means to recreate these conditions. at some point scientific method surrenders to the unknown.
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on The Philosophy of Science

  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
762
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
759
Replies
68
Views
7K
Replies
55
Views
16K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Top