What is Science? Popper, Kuhn & Beyond

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Mentat
I don't know. What are particles, for that matter?

So we can't really define "physical"?

General Relativity has come along, and there is no longer any need to postulate non-physical interactions

Haven't we just renamed the angels spacetime?

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Mentat
It can't. The scientific method cannot be used to understand itself.

If science is "whatever people who call themselves scientists say they are doing when they 'do' science", surely it's easy (in principle) to apply the scientific method to get an answer? Isn't that more or less what Kuhn did?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Less, rather than more. Kuhn's theories are very much influenced by Kuhn's personal views, and the basic "paradigm" satz fails the comparison with how real science is done.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Less, rather than more. Kuhn's theories are very much influenced by Kuhn's personal views, and the basic "paradigm" satz fails the comparison with how real science is done.

Has anyone done a good study of 'science as she is done', using GA(SM)P*?

*Generally Accepted (Scientific Method) Principles (hope no accountants read this )

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Nereid
If science is "whatever people who call themselves scientists say they are doing when they 'do' science", surely it's easy (in principle) to apply the scientific method to get an answer? Isn't that more or less what Kuhn did?

Actually, Kuhn was a Philosopher of Science - or, at least, his work on the epistemology of science was Philosophy not Science.

Anyway, Science has a certain method. Therefore, those that adhere to method and continue researching in concert with this method are "scientists", but not everyone that calls what they do "science" is a scientist (just take, for example, so many of the "scientists" who work on Kinesiology who take it far out of the realm of science and into the occult).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
So we can't really define "physical"?

Yes we can, we just can't define every word we use afterward. Surely you realize that this is the case with all concepts, when expressed as words.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Mentat
Yes we can, we just can't define every word we use afterward. Surely you realize that this is the case with all concepts, when expressed as words.

All definitions of language are circular; on this point I agree. However, at the deepest level, I am trying to make the case that we can't distinguish between physical and non-physical except by the present methods of investigation. I think "physical" IS a statement of our present level of investigation; not an absolute concept [much less word] that otherwise has meaning. We just develop more complex models that shift the ambiguity from one definition to another. For this reason, to say that we can never measure the non-physical is meaningless. This is no different than saying that we can never measure the imaginary. To say that space-time is physical is equally meaningless except AS a definition.

 

[Nereid]

What IS Science? Who wants to know?

Or, what will you do with the answer(s)?

Just as there have been a number of different answers given to FZ+'s question - with varying degrees of overlap - those answers are of differing degrees of usefulness and satisfaction to the readers.

If you run, or own, a company which makes products for sale, and you employ 'scientists', then your interest in knowing 'what science is' is strongly related to how you can (continue to) make profits by doing the science better.

Similarly, if you run a non-profit organisation, be it governmental or otherwise, a better understanding of 'what science is' may help you meet your goals and objectives more quickly, efficiently, humanely, etc.

And there are surely many other POVs.

So, a few incomplete answers to FZ+'s questions:

1. Is science still just a branch of philosophy?[/color]
How does this help me make more profits? reduce the incidence of AIDS?

2. Is knowledge a goal as of itself?[/color]
No, it only matters to the extent it can help generate (more) profits, both now and into the future.

3. Can science say anything outside materialism?[/color]
Who cares?

4. Can science reach an end?[/color]
Say, what?

5. And who is right in how science works? Popper, or Kuhn? Or both/neither?[/color]
It doesn't matter, whichever one allows me to spend the ministerial budget better, and head off the next SARS epidemic, I'll read up on his books.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Nereid
Or, what will you do with the answer(s)?

Just as there have been a number of different answers given to FZ+'s question - with varying degrees of overlap - those answers are of differing degrees of usefulness and satisfaction to the readers.

If you run, or own, a company which makes products for sale, and you employ 'scientists', then your interest in knowing 'what science is' is strongly related to how you can (continue to) make profits by doing the science better.

Similarly, if you run a non-profit organisation, be it governmental or otherwise, a better understanding of 'what science is' may help you meet your goals and objectives more quickly, efficiently, humanely, etc.

And there are surely many other POVs.

So, a few incomplete answers to FZ+'s questions:

1. Is science still just a branch of philosophy?[/color]
How does this help me make more profits? reduce the incidence of AIDS?

2. Is knowledge a goal as of itself?[/color]
No, it only matters to the extent it can help generate (more) profits, both now and into the future.

3. Can science say anything outside materialism?[/color]
Who cares?

4. Can science reach an end?[/color]
Say, what?

5. And who is right in how science works? Popper, or Kuhn? Or both/neither?[/color]
It doesn't matter, whichever one allows me to spend the ministerial budget better, and head off the next SARS epidemic, I'll read up on his books.

This is a philosophical perspective: Science and the questions of science must have immediate applicability. This flies in the face of the spirit of science. You virtually reduce all of science to being engineering [no offense to engineers intended but there is a difference]. What use in going to the moon? What use was binary number theory for 500 years? What use is most of relativity? What use is the understanding of the implicit philosophies within the questions that we ask?

 

[Nereid]

"And there are surely many other POVs.[/color]"

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Nereid
"And there are surely many other POVs.[/color]"

 

[Sikz]

I would have to define science as the study of what we percieve to be the physical world. I would group all things into three Orders, the Order of Philosophy, the Order of Science, and the Order of Art. While philosophy in truth covers all of these things, the Order of Philosophy contains more specific ideas on the nature of reality, nothingness, god, human souls, etc. The Order of Science contains such things as physical law and theory and chemistry/biology/etc. Chemistry/biology/etc would be studies of general trends and patters on the large scale, while physical law defines what causes these happenings at the smallest scale possible. The Order of Art contains such things as painting, sculpture, war, and speech- things invented by people. The REASONS and true identities of these things belong to the Order of Philosophy, but the things themselves and the ways of going about them are in the Order of Art.

Unless anyone has a better system?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
All definitions of language are circular; on this point I agree. However, at the deepest level, I am trying to make the case that we can't distinguish between physical and non-physical except by the present methods of investigation. I think "physical" IS a statement of our present level of investigation; not an absolute concept [much less word] that otherwise has meaning. We just develop more complex models that shift the ambiguity from one definition to another. For this reason, to say that we can never measure the non-physical is meaningless. This is no different than saying that we can never measure the imaginary. To say that space-time is physical is equally meaningless except AS a definition.

If I say that "physical" means composed of spacetime or particles, then we have a definition of "physical" and to regress into a definition of other terms (even if those other terms are "spacetime" and "particle") is beside the point. That's why I brought up the fact that nothing can be completely defined.

 

[Mentat]

Oh, btw, I really like your quote, Ivan. It allows Devil's Advocate (and thus, people like me) to be an important part of philosophical inquiry.

 

[Jeebus]

I'm just going to keep this short and sweet. I would say Science is the way to classify between the knowns and the unknowns, the data from the skewed, the skeptic from the occurring. The rest is just philosophy. Almost quote like, eh?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Jeebus
I'm just going to keep this short and sweet. I would say Science is the way to classify between the knowns and the unknowns, the data from the skewed, the skeptic from the occurring. The rest is just philosophy. Almost quote like, eh?

Yeah, it is. I'd drop the "the rest is just philosophy" part, myself, but it does sound rather "quotsy".