Is science the supreme form or knowledge

[anjali]

State your opinion whether science is or not the supreme form of knowledge. I found this topic again at some school programs essay topic lists. I find it quite interesting, not bad.

[Lardlad95]

Science can't prove what is justice, or what is right or what is wrong.

Basically science can't prove moral issues. For everything else science can do whatever it feels like

[Adamore]

there is a scientific explanation for everything except ''moral'' issues so in a sense iis supreme knoldge but only if u konw how to use it

[honest intellectual]

I'm totally opposed to scientific monism. i had an epic argument about it with redstar2000 and BuyOurEverything - my views on it are all there (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=23&t=18737&hl=scientific%20knowledge&st=0)

[Tiki Man]

On physical reality and boolean truths, science can reign supreme with proof. And mental games such as morality must be decided.

[CorporationsRule]

"Is science the supreme form or knowledge?"

Yes. Scientific Supremacy is definately the dominant epistemilogical ideology of our day.

That's why we're all going to die soon.

[Palmares]

I think the big fuss about the 'greatness' of science is a major misconception. Traditionally science (and maths) are viewed as subjects that require great intellect and thus only those of great intellect do it.

Science (and maths) are based on logical thinking. Clearly this is of great benefit as these things govern many structures of our existence. However such things need to be known how to be applied.

Humanities, etc are based on abstract thinking. As mentioned before, this is the area of 'morals'. This is where the question are asked. Science (and maths) is the 'evidence' as such.

Who stereotypically do you picture as a 'genius'? A mathematician? A scientist? A doctor? Einstein? Or a philosopher? Sartre? Or both? Like Aristotle?

[redstar2000]

I don't know about "supreme"...

But science is light-years ahead of whatever's in second place.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Trissy]

Science has no firmly established knowledge. Science cannot and has not proven anything conclusive that can be of benifit to us for use in the future. You can produce no new conclusive knowledge through induction, deduction or falsificationism. Just because all swans I have encountered so far have been white, I can never truly say that 'All swans are white'.

My view of science is that of Kuhn, namely that science is a model for humans to understand the world by and as such is a single paradigm. It is not rational and requires similar leaps of faith that one finds in religion. That said, science I believe is more useful on a practical level and as such is superior to religion. It helps us on a technological and biological level even though it does not assist us morally.

I used an example of electrons in the thread called 'unexplainable' if anyone doesn't have a clue what I'm talking about.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

OK, where were we...


Science can't prove what is justice, or what is right or what is wrong.

Basically science can't prove moral issues

But science can tell you the consequences of taking a particular moral stance.
You decide what morals have the best qonsequences.


"Is science the supreme form or knowledge?"

Yes. Scientific Supremacy is definately the dominant epistemilogical ideology of our day.

That's why we're all going to die soon.

Who would you consider more likely to 'save the world'? some fat philosopher who's never read a single science book, or a scientist working on the cure for AIDS?
I'd pick scientists over philosophers anyday.


Science has no firmly established knowledge. Science cannot and has not proven anything conclusive that can be of benifit to us for use in the future. You can produce no new conclusive knowledge through induction, deduction or falsificationism. Just because all swans I have encountered so far have been white, I can never truly say that 'All swans are white'.

But philosophy has no 'firmly established knowledge'. It's all abstract nonsense that can't be proved in the real world. This is why Philosophy is my least favourite brain-food; it borders on downright superstition sometimes.

[Trissy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 01:22 PM
But philosophy has no 'firmly established knowledge'. It's all abstract nonsense that can't be proved in the real world. This is why Philosophy is my least favourite brain-food; it borders on downright superstition sometimes.
True, philosophy does have no established knowledge beyond 'the Cogito' but it is useful for realising how little we do in fact know. People sometimes get such a high opinion of themselves when they often have no right to be and philosophy helps people put their feet back down upon the ground where they belong. As a subject it is about the pursuit of subjective as well as objective knowledge and that is why I prefer it to the Sciences or Maths.


Who would you consider more likely to 'save the world'? some fat philosopher who's never read a single science book, or a scientist working on the cure for AIDS?
I'd pick scientists over philosophers anyday.

Philosophy has never suggested that it more useful then science when it comes to attempting to cure the world of its various problems but science can equally not deny that its foundations are in philosophy. We also to remember that science often serves a purpose and is not just an objective unbiased pursuit of knowledge. Medicines are produced for comapanies to get rich off and weapons to secure the power that a nation has over the world. Also science is responsible for the holes in the Ozone and the threat of nuclear war which are big problems that are scientifically created. These problems came about purely by people messing with forces they never truly understood and underestimating the consequences of their actions.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

But philosophy has no 'firmly established knowledge'. It's all abstract nonsense that can't be proved in the real world. This is why Philosophy is my least favourite brain-food; it borders on downright superstition sometimes

Science stems from philosophy really, it after all started as a way of understanding our world away from the superstition you seem to couple it with.

Many philosophers view reason as the ultimate way to gain knowledge, i.e. Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz etc. Some like Kant tried to prove metaphysics on geometrical terms. Philosophy is not abstract nonsense, that is a view held by those who have never read anything written by any philosopher in their life.

Political Philosophy has a practical end, Marxism is a philosophy that relies on action, Nietzsche believed all philosophers should lead by example and live their lives according to their system.

Such uninformed views are very unscientific, I would expect a scientist to loook into philosophy at least and try gain something from it. They are hardly diametrically opposed as some people seem to think.

[cubist]

i believe that science is the way forward, i don't believe that science has got it right at the moment, i believe we have alot more to learn and that what we learn could contradict everything or it could confirm gods existance

Science is evolving as we are!.

noxion, science and the science of creation are too different things,

[Trissy]

it could confirm gods existance

How? Plus if it could, would this not remove faith and therefore make religion of less value to us then it is already?

[cubist]

trissy

its a difficult one to explain,

but i will try,

science and religion cuurently disagree, however science was controlled be religion originally,i think either GALEN upset alot of churches with his medical findings. or the church supported galen and vesailius upset the churches by prooving galen wrong i think its the latter but i am unsure.

science points to the big bang theory and evolution,

religion points that god made everything seperately

if humans where to study science for long enough and learn enough over time through better technology and more accurate study procedures they would enevitably draw a conclusion one way or another, we can not go on in suspense forever something will have to happen to over-turn the other.

be it jesus returns and all christians disappear, or science finds the illusive "missing Link" to proove evolution completely thus undermining the first part of the bible, conclusively removing the existance of GOD from the equation

As for the less valueable bit, i think yes it would remove blind faith and make it conclusive that god is not in existance and would stop alot of things in the world, like jihad and crazy right wing christian nuts

It would effectively drain the world of a key form of motivation to do things.

[redstar2000]

Science has no firmly established knowledge. Science cannot and has not proven anything conclusive that can be of benefit to us for use in the future. You can produce no new conclusive knowledge through induction, deduction or falsificationism. Just because all swans I have encountered so far have been white, I can never truly say that 'All swans are white'.

This seems rather "sweeping" and, I suspect, involves one or more rather esoteric definitions of "truth" and "benefit".

What I observe is that when we say something has been "scientifically established to be true", we are really saying that the world behaves "as if" what we said about it was true.

On the other hand, a "religious truth" or a "philosophical truth" does not seem to be able to acquire the same "confirmation" from the real world. The real world seems to be totally indifferent to such "truths".


It [science] is not rational and requires similar leaps of faith that one finds in religion.

How can this be? A "scientific truth" can, at least in principle, be confirmed by anyone willing to go to the trouble of checking it.

How does one "verify" the "resurrection"?


We also [need] to remember that science often serves a purpose and is not just an objective unbiased pursuit of knowledge.

I quite agree with you here; it is rooted in class society and strongly affected by that. Sometimes, the effects are so strong that the "science" part is completely overcome and what's left is just an ideology.

I'm not one of those folks who "worship at the altar" where high priests in lab coats deliver the "final revelation".

But the efforts to pass off ideology as "science" are not very successful in the long run. If someone's "science" is really a scam, the behavior of the real world will expose that...sooner or later.


Also science is responsible for the holes in the Ozone and the threat of nuclear war which are big problems that are scientifically created. These problems came about purely by people messing with forces they never truly understood and underestimating the consequences of their actions.

No, that's just wrong. They were not "messing with" forces they never "truly understood"...they were carrying out directed research projects designed to achieve certain ends--because someone in the capitalist class paid them to do that.

Before Freon© was invented, refrigerators and air conditioners used sulfur dioxide or ammonia as coolants...both of which are extremely toxic to human lungs. Freon, on the other hand, is quite harmless...you could breathe a tankful without damage or injury. It's true that no one anticipated the upper-atmosphere chemical reactions that made Freon so dangerous to the ozone layer; in those days almost nothing was known about the upper atmosphere at all.

But what was wanted from science was cheap and non-toxic refrigeration and air-conditioning...and science delivered.

The threat of nuclear war was directly connected with the rise of the Third Reich...German scientists were the first to demonstrate uranium fission in the laboratory in the late 1930s. It was felt by the capitalist governments of the U.S. and Britain that this potentially devastating weapon must be developed first...before the Nazis did it.

It is true that a small group of atomic scientists urged the capitalists to develop this weapon. In that sense, they were "responsible". But can you legitimately question their motives? What decent person (scientist or philosopher) in 1939 wanted to see a Nazi World State?

It's true that science can be "wrong"...sometimes catastrophically wrong. But "bad science" can be replaced with "better science"...and this has been observed to happen with some regularity.

I don't think the same thing can be said of philosophy and I know it can't be said about religion. If you look at the behavior of modern cults -- proto-religions that may someday become "major faiths" -- you see they behave as barbarously as anything you'll find in the "Old Testament". It's just "the same old shit". They never learn.

Science does.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 09:42 PM

it could confirm gods existance

How? Plus if it could, would this not remove faith and therefore make religion of less value to us then it is already?
...Religion is of little value to you. There are billions who find religion valuable.


Be it the clergy who find it valuable because they sustain high status. Or average people because it allows tthem to ignore their shitty lives.

Lots of people find values in religion, may not be good ones, but they are there

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 10:31 PM

Science has no firmly established knowledge. Science cannot and has not proven anything conclusive that can be of benefit to us for use in the future. You can produce no new conclusive knowledge through induction, deduction or falsificationism. Just because all swans I have encountered so far have been white, I can never truly say that 'All swans are white'.

This seems rather "sweeping" and, I suspect, involves one or more rather esoteric definitions of "truth" and "benefit".

What I observe is that when we say something has been "scientifically established to be true", we are really saying that the world behaves "as if" what we said about it was true.

On the other hand, a "religious truth" or a "philosophical truth" does not seem to be able to acquire the same "confirmation" from the real world. The real world seems to be totally indifferent to such "truths".


It [science] is not rational and requires similar leaps of faith that one finds in religion.

How can this be? A "scientific truth" can, at least in principle, be confirmed by anyone willing to go to the trouble of checking it.

How does one "verify" the "resurrection"?


We also [need] to remember that science often serves a purpose and is not just an objective unbiased pursuit of knowledge.

I quite agree with you here; it is rooted in class society and strongly affected by that. Sometimes, the effects are so strong that the "science" part is completely overcome and what's left is just an ideology.

I'm not one of those folks who "worship at the altar" where high priests in lab coats deliver the "final revelation".

But the efforts to pass off ideology as "science" are not very successful in the long run. If someone's "science" is really a scam, the behavior of the real world will expose that...sooner or later.


Also science is responsible for the holes in the Ozone and the threat of nuclear war which are big problems that are scientifically created. These problems came about purely by people messing with forces they never truly understood and underestimating the consequences of their actions.

No, that's just wrong. They were not "messing with" forces they never "truly understood"...they were carrying out directed research projects designed to achieve certain ends--because someone in the capitalist class paid them to do that.

Before Freon© was invented, refrigerators and air conditioners used sulfur dioxide or ammonia as coolants...both of which are extremely toxic to human lungs. Freon, on the other hand, is quite harmless...you could breathe a tankful without damage or injury. It's true that no one anticipated the upper-atmosphere chemical reactions that made Freon so dangerous to the ozone layer; in those days almost nothing was known about the upper atmosphere at all.

But what was wanted from science was cheap and non-toxic refrigeration and air-conditioning...and science delivered.

The threat of nuclear war was directly connected with the rise of the Third Reich...German scientists were the first to demonstrate uranium fission in the laboratory in the late 1930s. It was felt by the capitalist governments of the U.S. and Britain that this potentially devastating weapon must be developed first...before the Nazis did it.

It is true that a small group of atomic scientists urged the capitalists to develop this weapon. In that sense, they were "responsible". But can you legitimately question their motives? What decent person (scientist or philosopher) in 1939 wanted to see a Nazi World State?

It's true that science can be "wrong"...sometimes catastrophically wrong. But "bad science" can be replaced with "better science"...and this has been observed to happen with some regularity.

I don't think the same thing can be said of philosophy and I know it can't be said about religion. If you look at the behavior of modern cults -- proto-religions that may someday become "major faiths" -- you see they behave as barbarously as anything you'll find in the "Old Testament". It's just "the same old shit". They never learn.

Science does.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas
...Could you go one day without being longwinded? I ask you as a friend and someone who has really bad eyesight

[redstar2000]

Long-winded? Me?

Surely you jest. :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 11:24 AM
Long-winded? Me?

Surely you jest. :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas
Don't let the hat with bells and the fact that I have a spiritual side fool you..I am no jester

[Trissy]

This seems rather "sweeping" and, I suspect, involves one or more rather esoteric definitions of "truth" and "benefit".

If it is rather sweeping then that is your opinion. I shall attempt to provide my reasoning, and if this is a rather long entry then I apologise. They are not esoteric definitions they are the proper ones. I cannot help it if society choses to misuse words at times. My definition of truth is something that cannot be denied and is therefore a necessary truth. Descartes' Cogito would perhaps be an example. By benefit I meant something which could 100% accurately predict the future (e.g. example 'every swan I see will be white'). Sorry to use the same example again and again but if I stick to a simple example then nobody will get lost.


On the other hand, a "religious truth" or a "philosophical truth" does not seem to be able to acquire the same "confirmation" from the real world. The real world seems to be totally indifferent to such "truths"

That's because philosophical and religious truths are very often subjective and personal truths (such as 'I feel such and such an emotion' or 'I believe X to be true'). Science sets out to establish objective truths which are true for all and we should not lose sight of this. If the acceleration of a falling object under Earth's gravity is 9.81 m per s per s for me then it is for you too.


How can this be? A "scientific truth" can, at least in principle, be confirmed by anyone willing to go to the trouble of checking it.

How does one "verify" the "resurrection"?

My point is that no matter how hard you check you cannot establish anything as knowledge. Plus I am not trying to prove religion since I have agnostic/atheist beliefs. All I am suggesting is that both require leaps of faith or assumptions.

Deduction establishes a conclusion as true if both the initial premises are true. But how do we establish the initial premises as true? Hence deduction cannot be the foundation of scientific knowledge. Induction generalises many observations and establishes a rule on them (e.g. all swans are white). But the problem with this is that we can never make all the necessary observations (I cannot see every swan in the Universe) and so I have to make assumptions (or a leap of faith as I put it). Also just because all swans are white now how can I say that all swans will be white in the future? A genetic mutation could lead to a swan being black or green or yellow. The probelm of deduction and induction was first raised by Hume and is now known as Hume's fork. This leaves us with falsificationism which admits it cannot arrive at a sentance that is true merely a sentance that is the most accurate we can have at the present moment in time (because we could have overlooked potenitially falsifying observations). So if this is all taken into account we have nothing proven to be true by science.


No, that's just wrong. They were not "messing with" forces they never "truly understood"...

My point is that if they did not understand the upper atmosphere and the affect of Chlorine free radicals on ozone then they should not have used it. If they didn't understand it then they were messing with things they knew little about.

As for the nuclear bomb, German scientists had seriously overestimated the amount of Uranium 235 needed
to create a nuclear bomb and so were nowhere near to being able to produce one. When the bomb was dropped on Japan the Japanese were also nowhere near capable of making one. The US could have won the war with traditional methods rather then nuke helpless civilians. Einstein famously thought that the nuclear bomb would be used for peace and to quote the Matrix 'fate it appears is not without a sense of irony'. I think Nietzsche had a point when he said that truth must serve a purpose and that a blind pursuit of unknown truth is dangerous. If the world had the choice to never discover the nuclear bomb would it? It would not surprise me if the end of the world came from science opening Pandora's box...


...Religion is of little value to you. There are billions who find religion valuable

I know and this deeply saddens me. If so many people are preoccupied with the idea that something HAS to love them and that there HAS to be something after death is it of little wonder that the world is as screwed up as it is?

[Wenty]

too many long posts! btw, this is off topic but cephas where r u from in bristol? Noticed while perusing the profiles as i do. I only ask cus i'm from there.

[Trissy]

They're only long due to the complicated nature of scientific knowledge Adam. Stop complaining and attempt to read them, understand them, think about them and then maybe comment on them. Failing that take Wittgenstein's advice and remain silent...

[redstar2000]

Deduction establishes a conclusion as true if both the initial premises are true. But how do we establish the initial premises as true?

Well, the initial premises could be truths that were deduced from even earlier premises.

Eventually, you'd work your way back to axioms that would seem to be "self-evident".

"Seem" is not the same as "is", of course...and I could see someone (you?) saying that my deductive castle is resting firmly on...thin air.

But suppose I "buttress" my castle with a large number of observations (induction)...the "self-evident" axioms that I began with "seem" to be true not just once but over and over again no matter how I choose to observe them.

Then suppose I borrow the falsification idea: I try in every way I can think of to falsify my axioms...and they still seem to "work".

Now, instead of "one path" to truth, I have a "tripod" to build my castle on...each serving to reinforce the other. Any one or even two of them might fail at a particular problem...but all three? All at once?

Thus I observe that all the swans I can locate are white. From examining the genome of swans, I learn that the gene that determines feather-color for swans is always identical in structure. I deliberately alter that gene...and sure enough, black swans emerge from their eggs.

Thus I conclude that in nature at the present time, all swans are white. It is possible that swans may, in the future, evolve to be other colors. It is barely possible that some swans that are non-white may exist now...but no one has ever found any.

Is that truth that "cannot be denied"?

On what grounds?


My point is that if they did not understand the upper atmosphere and the affect of Chlorine free radicals on ozone then they should not have used it. If they didn't understand it then they were messing with things they knew little about.

The logical inference of that view is paralysis. We clearly cannot foresee "all" of the consequences of our contemplated actions...therefore we can do nothing without risk. And if all active intervention in the world is "risky", and avoiding risk has the highest priority, then we can do nothing at all.

I generally dislike arguments based on "human nature" -- but it seems to me in this case that humans "mess with things" as a matter of "instinct". So, in fact, do all (observed) primates.

We do not seem to be "hard-wired" to "rest content" with "things as they are".

"Curiosity killed the cat" the old saying has it...and it may kill us as well. But the cat would not be a cat without curiosity...and we would not be humans.


As for the nuclear bomb, German scientists had seriously overestimated the amount of Uranium 235 needed to create a nuclear bomb and so were nowhere near to being able to produce one. When the bomb was dropped on Japan the Japanese were also nowhere near capable of making one.

You are speaking here of events subsequent to the decision to actually try to build a fission bomb. In the period 1938-1941, the Nazis were winning the war. The Japanese also did very well in 1942. When we look back, with all the information that was revealed after the war was over, it looks to us now like a "slam dunk"...no way the Axis could have won.

But it didn't look that way in 1939.


I think Nietzsche had a point when he said that truth must serve a purpose and that a blind pursuit of unknown truth is dangerous. If the world had the choice to never discover the nuclear bomb would it? It would not surprise me if the end of the world came from science opening Pandora's box...

This is a bit disappointing; it sounds like one of those old 1950s horror movies...where the voice-over says in deep tones "There are things man was not meant to know". (Ominous theme up.)

Had there been no World War II, nuclear fission might not have become practical before 1960 or 1970...it's hard to say. But it was an "obvious" development of existing theory. You know as well as I that when a new area of scientific exploration is opened up, the "brightest kids on the block" rush to get in on it.

As to Pandora's famous box, yes, it could turn out that way. But don't forget -- hope was in that box too. We may kill ourselves off and much of the planet as well...or we may go to the stars.

But we will always refuse to tolerate boredom.


Failing that, take Wittgenstein's advice and remain silent...

:lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Trissy]

Well, the initial premises could be truths that were deduced from even earlier premises.

Eventually, you'd work your way back to axioms that would seem to be "self-evident".

"Seem" is not the same as "is", of course...and I could see someone (you?) saying that my deductive castle is resting firmly on...thin air

Indeed I would be inclined to suggest such an idea. We could say that 'my eyesight works as scientists believe eyes to work' could be such an axiom if we are trying to establish facts empirically but proving this is rather difficult if not impossible. A theist may choose to argue that to them the existence of God is self-evident from the design of the Universe and causality etc, etc.


Now, instead of "one path" to truth, I have a "tripod" to build my castle on...each serving to reinforce the other. Any one or even two of them might fail at a particular problem...but all three? All at once?
Is that truth that "cannot be denied"?

On what grounds?

well I agree the three way system increases the accuracey of your statements a lot but I still have trouble with the idea that science can ever hold up a statement as a pure undeniable fact that it appears to be searching for. The reasons I think this I have mentioned before but I'll list them as briefly as possible...
*we can never make all the required observations to induce statement or leave a statement unfalsified.
*what comes first theory or observation? Our observations appear to be theory laden (because we rule out certain observations we believe to be irrelevant - e.g. I don't observe cheese in my search for swans). Our theories also have to be laden with prior observations because there is trouble making theories which are unfalsifiable (Popper would have criticised marxist attempts to be classified as a science due to this idea). We end up with a version of the old chicken-egg argument.
*If an observation appears to falsify or verify a theory we are still in no position to judge the theory because we can either suggest the observation was flawed, or that one of our previous auxillary statements is wrong.
*We know no longer experience things directly through the senses but through machines. My experience of electrons is never direct and so I am required to assume the accuracey of my technology. How can I ever be sure electrons actually exist or that electrons are what I believe them to be?


The logical inference of that view is paralysis. We clearly cannot foresee "all" of the consequences of our contemplated actions...therefore we can do nothing without risk

To a degree yes, but on a more practical note I was meaning to suggest that experimenting on things fully in a lab is better then leting something loose on the world. I know nobody meant to use CFC's to harm the world but if it teaches us anything then it is to do more testing before we proclaim something to be safe.


I generally dislike arguments based on "human nature" -- but it seems to me in this case that humans "mess with things" as a matter of "instinct".

I'm inclined to agree with you again. My own thoughts are that humans are curious but at the same time scared of things they don't know such as outer space, death, and also social things like other cultures, sexualities, religions or races. We tend to deal with this in two ways. We either inquire in a search for knowledge, or we create our own ideas to hold as dogma (such a God, or bigoted ideas such as 'X are wrong/inferior/unnatural) and then set about hating the opposition to this.


You know as well as I that when a new area of scientific exploration is opened up, the "brightest kids on the block" rush to get in on it

True and they all do so with a purpose in mind which we sometimes tend to forget with our cosey idea of scientists working towards truth for truth's sake. Sometimes the purpose is good (e.g. cure for cancer) and sometimes it is not so good (e.g wealth and power).


As to Pandora's famous box, yes, it could turn out that way. But don't forget -- hope was in that box too. We may kill ourselves off and much of the planet as well...or we may go to the stars

I think another quote Matrix quote is in order to sum up the Nietzschean take on hope :mellow:

Hope, it is the quintessential human delusion, simultaneously the source of your greatest strength, and your greatest weakness

[redstar2000]

A theist may choose to argue that to them the existence of God is self-evident from the design of the Universe and causality etc, etc.

Yes, and they often do. But I've noticed that after making such an argument, they then move on as quickly as they can to another subject.

Why? Because if you make an "argument from design" then you have to explain why "God" "designed" bone cancer -- possibly the most agonizing form of natural human death.

Is "He" a sadistic bastard? Or just a big fuckup?


we can never make all the required observations to induce statement or leave a statement unfalsified.

True, but how many are "good enough"? If we travel everywhere in the world where swans are known to live (and even a great many places where no swans are found at all), and swans keep turning up white...isn't it reasonably safe (if not 100% certain) to conclude that all swans are white? Especially if we preserve an "escape clause" -- in the event a non-white swan turns up sometime in the future, we will then say "nearly all" swans are white.

People in science sometimes use the phrase "certain to five nines" -- meaning 99.999% certain. That's a goal, of course, and not achieved nearly as often as they'd like.


what comes first theory or observation? Our observations appear to be theory laden (because we rule out certain observations we believe to be irrelevant - e.g. I don't observe cheese in my search for swans). Our theories also have to be laden with prior observations because there is trouble making theories which are unfalsifiable...

Must one have "automatic" priority over the other? It seems to me that science doesn't really care if you start with a theory and gather observations to support it (or refute it) or if you start with a series of observations and develop a theory to "explain" them (or most of them, or some of them).

I think good scientists switch back and forth freely -- what is preferred is whatever approach seems to yield "interesting" or "suggestive" results at the time.


If an observation appears to falsify or verify a theory we are still in no position to judge the theory because we can either suggest the observation was flawed, or that one of our previous auxiliary statements is wrong.

And do we ever! The old joke is that if you don't like the result of a scientific study (for any reason!), attack the methodology!

Such attacks are quite justified a lot more often than most people realize. A genuinely "robust" study is much harder to construct than an "elegant" theory.

Still, people do as well as they can (sometimes) and real-world data continues to accumulate. "Bad" science eventually runs into problems; "good" science keeps getting "confirmation"--still nothing but white swans turning up.


We know no longer experience things directly through the senses but through machines. My experience of electrons is never direct and so I am required to assume the accuracy of my technology. How can I ever be sure electrons actually exist or that electrons are what I believe them to be?

Well, you could be "sure" if you were willing to undertake a lengthy and arduous study of physics -- and eventually, you'd find yourself in a lab repeating some experiments made back in 1913-16 which first revealed some of the properties of the electron. (I'm assuming you're independently wealthy and can afford to properly equip your lab, etc.)

It does sometimes happen (though less often in recent decades) that erroneous assumptions and poor data necessitate the demolition of a whole "wing" of science's castle -- the "paradigm" is "hopelessly fucked" and we have to start over again with fresh constraints on our theory of what "is".

Even rarer but it still happens: a theory thought to be discredited is suddenly revived because its replacement turned out to be even less adequate.

I think good scientists are actually pretty resigned to a certain amount of "uncertainty"...a reputable piece of quantitative science will contain "error-bars" -- indicators of uncertainty in the data.

"Mankind is very stupid and progress is very slow", said Einstein in one of his grimmer moods.

But it's still progress.


...but on a more practical note I was meaning to suggest that experimenting on things fully in a lab is better then letting something loose on the world. I know nobody meant to use CFC's to harm the world but if it teaches us anything then it is to do more testing before we proclaim something to be safe.

Well, as I indicated, no one knew much about the upper atmosphere in the 1930s and 1940s. It would have taken extraordinary insight to even pose the question of CFC's and ozone.

Beyond that, I think we have to accept the fact that life itself is "risky"...no matter what we do or don't do. If there's a deadly epidemic raging and we attempt to halt it with mass vaccination, for example, a small number of people are going to die from the vaccine.

When our ancient ancestors learned how to grow and store grain, there were three consequences. 1. Famines could be averted. 2. A deadly fungus can grow on stored wheat that will kill you if you eat it. 3. A beneficial mold can grow on stored wheat (the source of penicillin) that will protect you from many diseases caused by bacteria.

And so on. Does anyone know the long-term effects on human health from the consumption of genetically-modified food crops? Or irradiated foodstuffs? Of course not...we can't ethically test this stuff on humans for 50 years, even if that were practical.

And since those are potentially profitable innovations, they will be dispersed into the population at large and "we'll see what happens". Everything I've seen suggests strongly that they are "safe", but no one really knows. In 50 years, we'll know. Probably.

In communist society, I could see people demanding more rigorous testing of innovations that could affect people's safety or well-being. But I doubt that it will be all that much more rigorous.

We "like" innovations...especially those that purport to make life easier or more enjoyable.


True and they all do so with a purpose in mind which we sometimes tend to forget with our cozy idea of scientists working towards truth for truth's sake. Sometimes the purpose is good (e.g. cure for cancer) and sometimes it is not so good (e.g wealth and power).

Well, I agree with you here. In science, you're generally not allowed to search for "truth for truth's sake" until you've won your Nobel Prize...if then.

I think some people "idealize" the scientist's life because all other "intellectual" lives look so much worse.

For the most part, "intellectuals" in capitalism lie for a living. And it's "comforting" to think that there are some people who "don't do that".

Since science has become more and more "market-oriented" in the last 50 years, the truth of the matter is that there is probably a good deal of lying going on in science...though of a trivial nature, for the most part. After all, does it really matter to science if some "scientist" "cooks his data" to "prove" that one shoddy commodity is "better" than another?

And there are real world limits. The more "spectacular" you claim your new drug is, the more other drug companies will turn its critics loose on your data...hoping to prove your new drug is no better than placebo.

Another factor is more serious and, in my opinion, undermines the scientific purpose a good deal.

For various reasons, we live in the age of the "five-minute crisis" -- a scientist who can locate and publicize a hither-to unknown "crisis" can make quite a name for himself and secure some very generous research grants, even a prestigious academic appointment, etc.

The "crisis" does not have to be a real one...though that helps.

There's a lot to be gained by scaring the public and some "scientists" are not the least bit shy about using that technique.

E.g., "Study Shows Increased Risk of Toe-Rot in Marijuana Users".


Hope, it is the quintessential human delusion, simultaneously the source of your greatest strength, and your greatest weakness

Well, perhaps. I think people who don't have any generally choose suicide.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 09:05 PM

Is "He" a sadistic bastard? Or just a big fuckup?


I'd go with the later. Read "The Dispensational Truth" it talks about the Pre-adamite earth. One of the Lords Grandest fuck ups.

Basically he created the first earth. But the men on this earth were wild and animal like..much like cave men. And he put Lucifer in Charge of them...before he stopped being the morning star and became the devil. Lucifer basically fucked that world up, but the buck stops with God..so...

God destroyed that earth and rebuilt it as the one we know today. It's odd though that some say this is the first earth when the earth already existed in Jewish/christian lore. For instance in genisis before the second creation it said the earth was formless...thus it already existed. And it said God hovered above the waters of the earth, whiich were already there from the original creation.

[Trissy]

Is "He" a sadistic bastard? Or just a big fuckup?

The usual theist get out clause for the existence of natural evil goes along the lines that either it is punishment for either our sins or for the Original sin. Baring that they tend to fall back on the idea that it is the work of demons following the fall of the Angels. Both are seriosuly flawed because they require a vengeful God and a literal translation of Genisis.


True, but how many are "good enough"? If we travel everywhere in the world where swans are known to live (and even a great many places where no swans are found at all), and swans keep turning up white...isn't it reasonably safe (if not 100% certain) to conclude that all swans are white? Especially if we preserve an "escape clause" -- in the event a non-white swan turns up sometime in the future, we will then say "nearly all" swans are white

It is of course reasonable to say this but we still wouldn't have arrived at knowledge sadly, merely realtive knowledge which would still require a very small act of faith. Also the amount of time and person power required to get the relative certainty on this simple example would be quite large. Imagine if we were trying to examine the reactions of all known carboxlylic acids with all known alcohols under just standard conditions? We would get vastly different results depending on the accuracey of the chemist and numerable other factors. If we then have to consider the effects of different Van Der waal's forces in such reactions then we end up with a mission that could take the lifetimes of many, many people (which will need to be redone every now and then to make sure the things we find are still valid).

In a longwinded kind of a way what I'm trying to say is that we open ourselves up to a hugh minefield with science if we ever want to prove the soundness of one or two simple assertions. This I think is what led Kuhn to his theory of paradigms and the view that young scientists are often indoctrinated into the paradigm being used at the time. We simply cannot test all that has gone before us and so must have blind faith in the truth of what our teachers say. It takes exceptional young scientists (like Einstein) to destroy the paradigm that is around when they are learning their skills.


Must one have "automatic" priority over the other?

Well if we're trying to distinguish science from non-science then we must. I have not heard many scientists
propose a three way system of science when asked what makes science and its methods so special. Is Marxism or Psychoanalysis a science? If we follow the idea of Inductionsists then it could be argued so, but a Falsificationist would disagree.


And do we ever! The old joke is that if you don't like the result of a scientific study (for any reason!), attack the methodology!

Such attacks are quite justified a lot more often than most people realize. A genuinely "robust" study is much harder to construct than an "elegant" theory.

Still, people do as well as they can (sometimes) and real-world data continues to accumulate. "Bad" science eventually runs into problems; "good" science keeps getting "confirmation"--still nothing but white swans turning up

Which would say something for Kuhn's view of science. This would point towards periods of 'normal science' where you all use the same paradigm (or should that be sing from the same hymn sheet? ^_^ ) and periods of revolutionary science where the very future of science is at stake and two rival paradigms fight it out to the death. I think two of the better examples Kuhn might use are the Copernican revolution and the birth of quantum mechanics.


"Mankind is very stupid and progress is very slow", said Einstein in one of his grimmer moods.

But it's still progress

Oh I never doubted that science progresses (as well as regresses from time to time). I just don't think it ever reaches its final destination of absolute truth. In my humble view it can be likened to the evolutionary process in which everything moves forward but with no specific goal beyond continual progress.


I think some people "idealize" the scientist's life because all other "intellectual" lives look so much worse

Indeed. I think it's the price science had to pay when it dethroned religion as the source of absolute authority on nearly all subjects....


Well, perhaps. I think people who don't have any generally choose suicide

True, but perhaps some people whose lives are superfluous tend to have misplaced hope when they shouldn't have, and thereby they extend their superfluous and needlessly painful existence. Mmm...it's just for the more inferior of us to decide if that includes us I suppose.

[iloveatomickitten]

Is there any greater value in absolute truth than in the ability to predict accurately with science? Is not the only value in truth or science that it betters our lives. Whether or not it is the "supreme form" is irrelevant, I think plato (his being the only philosphy involving forms which I know of) was totally misguided.
The value we place on methodology is preceded by basic illogical assumptions which we are totally unable to justify, which in a sense undercut all values based upon these irrationalities. It would be wrong then to assume that anything is the supreme anything without becoming dogmatic. All that is really necessary is to believe that you are correct, afterlife being a prime example - If you die and you were correct then you achieve your goal and if death is the end then there is not negative.
Intellectually nothing should be done for the sake of itself as it yeilds nothing.

[redstar2000]

In a longwinded kind of a way what I'm trying to say is that we open ourselves up to a huge minefield with science if we ever want to prove the soundness of one or two simple assertions...We simply cannot test all that has gone before us and so must have blind faith in the truth of what our teachers say. It takes exceptional young scientists (like Einstein) to destroy the paradigm that is around when they are learning their skills.

I think you make an important point...the "blind faith" in what our teachers tell us is provisional. If an "exceptional young scientist" comes along who is able to demonstrate that the existing paradigm is hopelessly inadequate, then "blind faith" is summarily relegated to the dumpster of history as the best scientists rush to explore the ramifications of the new paradigm.

I think such dramatic changes are rare in philosophy and non-existent in religions. All the "new revelations", upon inspection, turn out to be re-cycled material from previous "revelations".


I have not heard many scientists
propose a three way system of science when asked what makes science and its methods so special.

Neither have I. My impression is that scientists rarely like to talk about the "foundations" of their outlook at all. To them, it's not an "interesting" question.

I think they are, though, very pragmatic in their methodology and are quite willing to "latch on" to any method that seems promising.

Many of them have said explicitly that science is not the search for ***TRUTH*** but just the search for a particular and limited truth.

The fact that they have constructed a sizable structure of knowledge which looks as if it might be ***TRUTH*** (if not now, then someday) doesn't really matter to them.

You can't get a research grant to search for ***TRUTH***.


Oh I never doubted that science progresses (as well as regresses from time to time). I just don't think it ever reaches its final destination of absolute truth. In my humble view it can be likened to the evolutionary process in which everything moves forward but with no specific goal beyond continual progress.

I think science converges on "absolute truth" even if, from philosophical considerations, it never "truly" reaches that goal.

I think every scientist would assert, if pressed, that s/he is trying for a more accurate understanding of whatever s/he might be studying.

The sum of "ever-more-accurate understandings" converges on absolute accuracy or ***TRUTH***.

:redstar2000:

PS: May I extend to you, Trissy, a belated but enthusiastic welcome to this board. I find your posts to be exceptionally interesting and "mind-stretching"...at least they stretch my mind. :D

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Gaia]

Sorry but I just have to point out that in Western Australia there are black swans, sorry being a pedant I know.

I find the examination between Eastern mysticism and quantum physics extemely interesting. The language is incredibly similar "formless energy" and the like. Both are also dealing with ideas such as does the observer change the observed? In quantum physics we find the deeper questions of the universe being philosophised, do photons and quarks have free will? If not then why does experimenting with them create so many possibilities in unchanging experimental conditions? is there an unseen force at work? A lot of quantum physics is based on calculating possible outcomes, because Physicists can't say absolutely what will happen, only what is the statistically most likely outcome. As with most sciences but quantum physicists are quite open with admitting their shortcomings and inablities to make absolute statements and come up with absolute truths, merely generalisations that work well enough to be gotten away with.

I don't think there is a single system anywhere in the world that can provide a satisfactory explanation of the world around us. But I think that people should be allowed to choose any path, tool or system that takes their fancy.

If you get to bogged down in proving something absolutely then you would never prove anything, but gosh doesn't that leave us a lot of things to think about and to debate?

If the universe was easy enough to understand then we wouldn't have science or religion or philosophy but I think we would also be extremely bored/boring. Or just slime mould. So let science and philosophy fight it out, neither is ever going to win, but they will provide some fantastic ideas and food for thought.

[Trissy]

I think such dramatic changes are rare in philosophy and non-existent in religions. All the "new revelations", upon inspection, turn out to be re-cycled material from previous "revelations"

Indeed but this is unsurprising if we consider the natures of science and philosophy respectively. Science is the seek of purely objective knowledge and if we are to use Kuhnian terms is defined by the fact that it is made up of a single paradigm.

Philosophy on the other hand is the search for objective and subjective knowledge depending on what branch you're talking about, and as such consists of many paradigms. Philosophy is made up of binary views and so it is difficult to escape from the battle between two paradigms (Idealism and Materialism, or Rationalism and Empiricism for example). Having said that philosophy does occasionally have pivital moments when it spawns new ideas (such as the work of Hegel leading to the birth of Marxism, and Existenitialism in the form of Kierkegaard.


The fact that they have constructed a sizable structure of knowledge which looks as if it might be ***TRUTH*** (if not now, then someday) doesn't really matter to them

True but I expect they are braver individuals then I am. I've abandoned my hopes of a career in science partly to do with the fact I couldn't cope with the devastation if I'd worked for 40 years in one specific area just to have someone come along and reduce the value of my work to nothing by showing my data to be 'wrong'.


I think every scientist would assert, if pressed, that s/he is trying for a more accurate understanding of whatever s/he might be studying

I agree up to a point but sometimes our new descriptions lead us little closer to understanding what is at work. Light has been understood to be a particle, a wave, and something which is similar to both particles and waves. Now I understand each of the terms but yet I feel no closer to being able to describe what light is, just how I observe it to be.


May I extend to you, Trissy, a belated but enthusiastic welcome to this board. I find your posts to be exceptionally interesting and "mind-stretching"...at least they stretch my mind

Why thank you. I must also mention what a pleasure it is to be able to talk about such ideas with clever, open-minded people such as yourself. Most of the people I know think philosophy is a wishy-washy subject and the prospect of discussing things feels them with dread and boredom.


Sorry but I just have to point out that in Western Australia there are black swans, sorry being a pedant I know

I know. That's why I used it as a good example of some of the flaws in the scientific method. For many years Europeans thought that 'all swans were white' because they induced it from all their past experiences of only ever having seen white swans. Another famous example would be the the fact that when the first British Victorians saw a duckbill Platypus sent back from Australia they thought it was a hoax. The idea of an egg laying mammal probably seemed ludicrous to them based on all the experiences they had at their disposal.

[redstar2000]

I've abandoned my hopes of a career in science partly to do with the fact I couldn't cope with the devastation if I'd worked for 40 years in one specific area just to have someone come along and reduce the value of my work to nothing by showing my data to be 'wrong'.

They should at least have the common decency to wait until you're dead, right? :lol:

Actually, I think it's rare to see "a major theory" go down the toilet while the scientist is still alive -- the only one that comes to my mind is Fred Hoyle's "steady-state cosmology". But Hoyle, undiscouraged, has published a "new version" and...who knows?

As the saying has it, "cosmologists are often wrong but never uncertain".

I recall reading an essay by the late Isaac Asimov in my youth that was titled something like "Experiments that Failed". His point was that we have often learned a great deal from failure, perhaps as much as we've ever learned from success. Experimental failure is a message from the real world: "I'm not like you thought I was -- try again!"


Light has been understood to be a particle, a wave, and something which is similar to both particles and waves. Now I understand each of the terms but yet I feel no closer to being able to describe what light is, just how I observe it to be.

Yeah, when you get down to the quantum level, words are almost hopelessly inadequate. Wave-particle duality -- light as a "wavacle" -- is simple and even elegant in mathematical terms. And it can be tested...and it "works".

But even those who understand the mathematics as easily and intuitively as I understand how an internal combustion engine works -- in other words, people much smarter than I am -- find themselves in difficulties when it comes to explaining matters at the quantum level. We can invent a verbal set of terms easily enough -- but the words have no "feel" to them, they don't convey "what it's really like" because there's nothing like it in our "macro-world".

Perhaps someday when our knowledge is more advanced and our ability to visually portray that knowledge much enhanced, it will be possible to show non-scientists "what it's really like" at the quantum level.

Safe prediction: that won't happen anytime soon.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas