Is science the only method for understanding?

[Publius]

Is it?

Or are logic, history, philosophy and math integral as well?

How does a 'materialist' gather information?

I would say science is the only 'materialist' mode. Correct?

[LSD]

I'm not sure I understand your question.

Logic is an integral part of science, as is math. You simply cannot have science without both logic and mathematics. Your question seems to imply that it's a "one or the other" deal when in fact they are fundamentally interconnected.

And insofar as history, it is not exclusive of science. In fact the only valuable historical investigations are those which utilize scientific principles.

Ideally, there should be no area of research period which does not use scientific principles and methodologies.


I would say science is the only 'materialist' mode. Correct?

Yes.

But understand that "science" does not merely mean the so-called "hard sciences", it means the scientific method; i.e., empiracism, deduction, hypothesis and hypothesis testing, etc...

[Xvall]

I would consider math a "science", or at least an important aspect of it. I believe that "science" is a very general term that encompasses many things. (Architecture, Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics, etc.)

[Publius]

I'm not sure I understand your question.

What is/are the correct way/s to gather information?



Logic is an integral part of science, as is math. You simply cannot have science without both logic and mathematics. Your question seems to imply that it's a "one or the other" deal when in fact they are fundamentally interconnected.

I mean logic in and of itself.

A=A for instance.

Ditto for math.

Not math as a part of science, but math as a means for understanding things, all on its own.



And insofar as history, it is not exclusive of science. In fact the only valuable historical investigations are those which utilize scientific principles.

Somewhat vague.



Ideally, there should be no area of research period which does not use scientific principles and methodologies.

But pure logic often doesn't follow the scientific method; is it invalid?




But understand that "science" does not merely mean the so-called "hard sciences", it means the scientific method; i.e., empiracism, deduction, hypothesis and hypothesis testing, etc...

What about things that can't be expressed in the scientifc manner?

[LSD]

I mean logic in and of itself.

A=A for instance.


Logic "in and of itself" is the cornerstone not only of science but of rational thought in general.

"A=A" is not an esoteric academic abstraction, but a fundamental axiom of science. Likewise for the logical ideas of correlation, causation, derivation, deduction, induction, verification, evidence...

Again, there simply is no science without logic behind it, and I don't see how you can seperate the two.


Not math as a part of science, but math as a means for understanding things, all on its own.

Again, there is no seperation there.

Science is about using the most useful tools to empiraclly and objectively investigate pheonomnon. Often that means using math.

For instance, math is pretty much the only way for understanding issues of complex theoretical physics. You simply cannot understand motion without first understanding calculus.

So does math alone tell us anything beyond mathematics? No.

But it is still an indispensible tool for anylyzing the universe.


Somewhat vague.

Well, terse, anyways.

My point was that historical anlyses need to be scientific. They must utilize principles of verifiability and logical correlation. They must only accept that which is proven, or strongly suggested, by sufficient confirmable evidence.

It appears obvious, but it only really emerged as the dominant theory of history in the 19th century. And even today, many still prefer "narative" or "mythic" history (see: religion).


But pure logic often doesn't follow the scientific method; is it invalid?

Except, the scientific method is logical. It's predicated on principles of logical investigation.

That doesn't mean that we relly on lgocial deductions alone, of course. Logic should be used only so far as it proves useful. The overriding principle must be scientific. Meaning that if logical deductions are contradicted by empirical observations, we must reconsider our conclusions.

I wouldn't say that "pure logic" is "invalid", I would say that it is an incredibly and indispensible part of scientific investigation. But, of course, theory is never sufficient and science is predicated on prediction and observation to confirm results.


What about things that can't be expressed in the scientifc manner?

Such as?

[jambajuice]

Science = logic + observation + repeated experiment.

Philosophy = logic (alone).

There is a reason why logic of the Greeks has been abandoned for the scientific method. Some wisea** can make all sorts of things up, it could be all wrong, and no one will ever know the difference. In fact that has happened many times in history with 'ologies'. Some wisea** makes things up with fancy words and ideas, everyone thinks he is right because the ideas are fancy, and the reality he is wrong; but because no one checks by repeating his work, no one knows he is wrong.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I first of all have issue with what you mean by scientfic method, but I take it that you mean that of hypotheico deductivism? as a prevailing trend in scientific though.

If so, then I would say that it cannot provide knowledge, but is actually the best method we have realised in our understanding of our material condition. Maths alone is tautological in nature and pretty useless as LSD pointed out, and seperating it from science is like seperating words from language, only more so because the language of math is far more fixed in definition than the more subjective and transiant language of the written word.

I am not sure if it is always the best method for examing a particular issue however. Science is studied at different levels, because essentially physical knwledge may help partially in understanding of chemistry, but if you go to a biological level, then explanation in terms of sub-atomic partcles is not sufficient for understanding.

The problem arises perhaps at the level of social science. Essentially true scientific method becomes very difficult here, because replication of results, or even controls can prove impossible. You can not examine a conscious being with relation to only one aspect of what exactly makes it worthy of study. For example you can't say "A woman will buy this because.. (insert general law)" for the simple matter that there are too many other governing factors.

Controls are also very difficult to implement at this level for another reason also. Conscious beings learn, and so repeating an experiment will often reveal different results. Also the dominance of any particular influence at any given time is also subject to change. Reaction to weather may well be subject to current health, response to an economic climate (macro) will be subject to the individual's (micro) economic condition.

For these reasons it is often unrealistic to apply the same methods to beings which possess consciousness.

[Delirium]

You can only accuratly answer 'how?' questions with science, but 'why?' questions can only be answered by philosophy or religion or somthing of that sort.

[Dark Exodus]

Originally posted by Datura [email protected] 24 2005, 04:38 PM
You can only accuratly answer 'how?' questions with science, but 'why?' questions can only be answered by philosophy or religion or somthing of that sort.
Give one example.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Datura [email protected] 24 2005, 04:38 PM
You can only accuratly answer 'how?' questions with science, but 'why?' questions can only be answered by philosophy or religion or somthing of that sort.
I disagree, science frequently answers why. However if you take it to the base level you either have to establish foundational truths upon which all science is justified (interesting to see how), or reduce science to nothing but a coherent loop, self-consistent, but ultimately it would fail under a holistic scientific method (if possible).

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 01:08 AM







Logic "in and of itself" is the cornerstone not only of science but of rational thought in general.

"A=A" is not an esoteric academic abstraction, but a fundamental axiom of science. Likewise for the logical ideas of correlation, causation, derivation, deduction, induction, verification, evidence...

Again, there simply is no science without logic behind it, and I don't see how you can seperate the two.

Science is logical, but logic isn't always scientific.


Again, there is no seperation there.

Science is about using the most useful tools to empiraclly and objectively investigate pheonomnon. Often that means using math.

For instance, math is pretty much the only way for understanding issues of complex theoretical physics. You simply cannot understand motion without first understanding calculus.

So does math alone tell us anything beyond mathematics? No.

Math is the only to convey a number of concepts in areas such as physics.

A number of these equations can't even be tested, at least yet.

Should we discard them?

Until they are tested, they aren't scientific, but they've been the basis of physics for hundreds of years.

String theory, for example, can't be scientifically tested, only theorized about mathamatically.



Well, terse, anyways.

My point was that historical anlyses need to be scientific. They must utilize principles of verifiability and logical correlation. They must only accept that which is proven, or strongly suggested, by sufficient confirmable evidence.

It appears obvious, but it only really emerged as the dominant theory of history in the 19th century. And even today, many still prefer "narative" or "mythic" history (see: religion).

But ultimately, history isn't scientific.

You can't prove Napoloen existed; it isn't falsifiable.

You can use scientific methods, but you can't truly know.

Science is certaintly, and much of history is less than certain.


Except, the scientific method is logical. It's predicated on principles of logical investigation.

That doesn't mean that we relly on lgocial deductions alone, of course. Logic should be used only so far as it proves useful. The overriding principle must be scientific. Meaning that if logical deductions are contradicted by empirical observations, we must reconsider our conclusions.

I wouldn't say that "pure logic" is "invalid", I would say that it is an incredibly and indispensible part of scientific investigation. But, of course, theory is never sufficient and science is predicated on prediction and observation to confirm results.

Agreed.

Pure logic is the basis of all thought.

For example, nothing would be possible without a priori assumptions.

But doesn't this somewhat invalidate science, if it can't stand on its own and requires a prior logic?



Such as?

2 + 2 = 4

It's an axiom.

You can't PROVE it, no matter how hard try.

[KC]

Science hasn't been inductively proven.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 06:05 PM
Science hasn't been inductively proven.
It cannot be inductively proved; it would involve a petitio principi.

And since science is some 500 or 600 years old, and mankind has been accumulating knowledge for much more time, it cannot be the only way to understand things. Though perhaps the only method since it would be possible to argue that pre-scientific knowledge was accumulated in a non-methodical way.

Luís Henrique

[dakewlguy]

No, not at all. Discussion is not scientific - it is extremely subjective and non-replicable. Yet it can be a very useful tool to help different groups understand each other. Historical analysis (the most popular tool of Marxists, I notice); philosophical methods like hermeneutics; mathematics in physical sciences; and in-depth studies in the social sciences; all are good methods of understanding, and absolutely not scientific.


You can only accuratly answer 'how?' questions with science, but 'why?' questions can only be answered by philosophy or religion or somthing of that sort.
Not neccessarily. Using experiments to determine cause and effect allow 'why' to be answered. Less so when looking at human activity, though. Also it is questionable whether it gives definitive - or ultimate - answers, or simply a subjective perspective.

[LSD]

Science is logical, but logic isn't always scientific.

Granted.

Science must be the overriding principle. Logical determinations can and have been flat-out wrong, but, again, I don't see that you can really make a seperation here.

Logical determinations still must be made. There are often situations in which we simply don't have the means to empirically observe or experiment. In such cases, it is immensly helpful to draw up models and theories based, indeed, on "pure logical" deductions from previous data.

These theories can never be assumed to be true, of course, but they still should be made and then tested.

I don't think that an "obervation alone" paradigm would ever function. The history of science shows us that, very often, theory is correct before it's ever proven.


Math is the only to convey a number of concepts in areas such as physics.

A number of these equations can't even be tested, at least yet.

Should we discard them?

Absolutely not; we should test them.

General relativity was a mathematical calculation. It was later proven to be an accurate means of prediction motion. But if Einstein had not initialy used mathematics to formulate his model, it is quite possible that we would still be using Newtonian figures (and wondering why Mercury doesn't fly straight).

We cannot "discard" those theories determined through pure mathematics or pure logic, because they very often prove to be correct!

From a pragmatic perspective, the reason that we use science is that it works. It has a consistant track record of being the best means of gathering data. Removing tools that have also been shown to work is counterproductive, not to mention pretty much impossible.

Scientists will continue to use "pure math" and "pure logic" to come up with models, mostly because, a lot of the time, it's all they've got.


String theory, for example, can't be scientifically tested, only theorized about mathamatically.

That's true, and string theory may well be correct. Certainly the limited evidence at this point would suggest it.

If we were to "discard" it because it was based on math and not observation, we would be shooting ourselves in the foot if it is someday discovered that it is true.

And even if it is demonstrated to be false, there is still no harm in investigating the possibility. Cartainly not to the degree of "discarding" a valid unified theory!


But ultimately, history isn't scientific.

You can't prove Napoloen existed; it isn't falsifiable.

Which is why you cannot prove anything in history, but it does not mean that it cannot be analyzed scientifically. It just means that you must acknowledge an uncertainty greater than in most "hard sciences" and express findings in terms of probabilites and not mathematical certainties.

It's a far more observational science than a theoretical one, but there is still room for theory and confirmation.

History can never be "fully known", but it can still be looked at from a scientific methodology.


But doesn't this somewhat invalidate science, if it can't stand on its own and requires a prior logic?

Everything relies on prior logic, though. Nothing can be proven ad infinitum. Ultimately, every human model or philosophy or methodology is based on fundamental axioms.

The real question is how useful are those axioms and do they conform with observational information.

Insofar as science, I would say that they most certainly do.


2 + 2 = 4

It's an axiom.

You can't PROVE it, no matter how hard try.

It can't be proven, no, but it can still be "expressed scientifically", which is what we were discussing.

Obviously science cannot verify it's own foundational axioms, but that does mean that it cannot express them. That is can most certainly do.

There is not a field of investigation that can not be addressed scientifically. There are fields that we currently do not have the tools or knowledge to understand. There are fields in which we are unable to learn much, but we must still fight this ignorance through science and not through "faith" or "philosophy".

Otherwise that ignorance will be perminant.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 05:53 PM
2 + 2 = 4

It's an axiom.
In fact, 2+2 is not equal to 4.

2+2 = 2+2.

"Four" is just a shorter name for 2+2; it is not a different entity.

Luís Henrique

[redstar2000]

Is science the only method for understanding?

It's interesting that this question "comes up" from time to time on this board. I'm pretty sure it never arises on boards that consist of actual working scientists and young people who want to become scientists.

To them, the scientific method is self-evident...it works in discovering "what is really going on" in natural phenomena.

And even better, it allows us to change the world to suit our own preferences.

We are no longer the "helpless victims" of natural phenomena...reduced to flopping on our bellies to placate "angry gods".

Is there or has there been any other "method for understanding" with such an exemplary track-record?

I find it therefore disappointing that those with an interest in changing human societies sometimes manifest "skepticism" or even "cynicism" about the scientific method.

As if someone could sit in their kitchen and "dream up" a "perfect society" from "philosophic considerations".

Or perhaps receive a "revelation from God" about what a new society "should look like".

I find particularly irritating the "criticism" that science can't be "proved" to be "really true".

When people who say that fall prey to disease, do they summon a "witch-doctor"? When their auto breaks down, do they have it towed to a revival meeting so that the preacher can "heal it" by a "laying on of hands"? If the weather becomes uncomfortably warm, do they pray for a cool front? When their computer mal-functions, do they take it to the philosophy department of the nearest university?

You know the answers to such questions as well as I...they act "as if" science is really true.

I think that's the reasonable assumption based on accumulated historical performance. It's what "we all do" if we have any sense at all.

It's true that there are "why questions" that science "cannot answer". But are they real questions?

That is, they may follow the formal rules of grammar for asking a question, but do they have any real world meaning?

One can imagine lots of examples of this...philosophers have been "chewing" those old bones for 25 centuries or more.

Net result: 0.00000!

I submit that a "question" without any empirically confirmable answer is not a real question at all. It may "sound like" a question but it's actually just noise.

So to those of you who sincerely want to "change the world" I have to ask you.

Will you learn to use the method that's worked or do you prefer superstitious fantasies or the conceits of philosophy?

It's a simple question and ought to be easy to answer. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Delirium]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 09:05 PM


I submit that a "question" without any empirically confirmable answer is not a real question at all. It may "sound like" a question but it's actually just noise.


I thourghly support the scientific method and believe it is the only acceptable way to adress questions that have an emperical answer. we must not ignore philosophical questions.

You cannot deny that the questions `Can we have certain knowledge of anything?`, `do i have a soul?`, what is the nature of human existance?` and other classical philosophical questions are important to all of us. and are issues that we deal with every day.

These questions are as important or more important to me than most scientific questions.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 09:05 PM








It's interesting that this question "comes up" from time to time on this board. I'm pretty sure it never arises on boards that consist of actual working scientists and young people who want to become scientists.

Well, to be fair a scientists job isn't really to think ABOUT science, it's to do science, just as a machinist doesn't think about machinary, he just uses it.

But let me note, I fully support science, I was just looking for some alternative viewpoints.

And there areas where pure science breaks down, namely a priori assumptions.



It's true that there are "why questions" that science "cannot answer". But are they real questions?

Not just 'why questions', I agree that they are pointless. There is no 'why', but a prior assumptions.

For example, scientifically prove humans are logical without getting into a circular logic trap.

Can't do it.

We have to ASSUME that we are rational, unscientifically, and go from there.

Bite the bullet as it were.





I submit that a "question" without any empirically confirmable answer is not a real question at all. It may "sound like" a question but it's actually just noise.

It depends.

THere are some 'scientific' things that aren't empirically confirmable. String theory, pre-Big Bang 'existence', abiogenesis all come to mind.

None of them are empirically confirmable. We can't KNOW what really happend, and any experiments on the subjects are inconclusive.

Things could easily change, but as of now, these areas are part 'philosophy'.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Datura inoxia
You cannot deny that the questions "Can we have certain knowledge of anything?", "do I have a soul?", "what is the nature of human existence?" and other classical philosophical questions are important to all of us. and are issues that we deal with every day.

I cheerfully deny the "importance" of such "questions" at least three times every morning before breakfast. :)

We are as "certain" of our knowledge as our technology permits.

There's no such thing as a "soul"...the scientific evidence in support of such a proposition is 0.00000!

And there's no such thing as "human existence" in the abstract. There are only the ways that humans have existed in specific historical circumstances...and the hypothetical ways they might plausibly exist in future human societies.

It is still thought useful (by the authorities) to baffle the young with any number of incompatible and unverifiable "philosophies"...along with the usual assortment of outright superstitions.

Thus adolescents spend a good deal of time and energy trying to "make sense" out of the utterly senseless. Perhaps this is supposed to keep them from thinking about sex. :lol:

In any event, I'm sure that you yourself will soon set aside such "deep concerns" in favor of the real world problems that all of us must face and solve as best we can.

Hint: the more you learn about how the real world actually works, the better you'll do!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Delirium]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 02:34 AM

Hint: the more you learn about how the real world actually works, the better you'll do!


There is no need to be a jackass, especially when you are making assumptions about me. You have no knowledge of my experience and understanding of the world.

you have hit a nerve if you did not notice

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Datura inoxia
You have hit a nerve if you did not notice.

Good! :)

That's what I try to do here.

How are we to confront error if we don't "hit nerves"?

It's perfectly possible that your direct knowledge of the real world far exceeds my own...at least in principle. Lots of people know more stuff than I do or ever will.

But the way you phrased those "philosophic questions" and stressed their "importance" invited me to conclude that you are young, inquisitive, and confused.

An incredibly common situation!

And what did I really do but invite you to put aside that useless crap and turn your attentions to the real world...and questions that have real answers?

What would you have preferred? A charming smile and a little pat on the head?

Oh, you're interested in philosophy...how adorable!

The name of this board is RevLeft...short for revolutionary left. People here are sharply critical not only of capitalism but of all ideas that purport to "explain reality" in the absence of empirical data.

Even Marx's own regrettable superstition -- "dialectics" -- is at this very moment being subjected to ruthless criticism in the Philosophy Forum.

Being revolutionary, for most of the people here, means we take nothing on mere "authority".

Some visitors to this board find all this very distressing. It makes them "nervous" to contemplate the end of their "cherished truths".

I hope you're not one of those folks.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Delirium]

You are correct i am only 17 and very inquisitive, but i would be hesitant to use the word confused.
Simply because a question does not have a definate answer, does not mean it is not worthwhile pursuing. Many of the things that are discused here are hypothetical and do not have definate answers but we still look for an solution.

[Dark Exodus]

Originally posted by Datura [email protected] 25 2005, 09:17 PM
You cannot deny that the questions `Can we have certain knowledge of anything?`, `do i have a soul?`, what is the nature of human existance?` and other classical philosophical questions are important to all of us. and are issues that we deal with every day.

These questions are as important or more important to me than most scientific questions
If that is your response then these can all be answered 'scientifically'. The only reason they cannot is because they aren't clearly defined.

What is a soul, for example?

[Delirium]

Originally posted by Dark Exodus+Nov 26 2005, 03:41 AM--> (Dark Exodus @ Nov 26 2005, 03:41 AM)
Datura [email protected] 25 2005, 09:17 PM
You cannot deny that the questions `Can we have certain knowledge of anything?`, `do i have a soul?`, what is the nature of human existance?` and other classical philosophical questions are important to all of us. and are issues that we deal with every day.

These questions are as important or more important to me than most scientific questions
If that is your response then these can all be answered 'scientifically'. The only reason they cannot is because they aren't clearly defined.

What is a soul, for example? [/b]
These questions by thier very nature cannot be answered scientificly.

Good question, What is a soul?

[Dark Exodus]

Originally posted by Datura inoxia+Nov 26 2005, 03:58 AM--> (Datura inoxia @ Nov 26 2005, 03:58 AM)
Originally posted by Dark [email protected] 26 2005, 03:41 AM

Datura [email protected] 25 2005, 09:17 PM
You cannot deny that the questions `Can we have certain knowledge of anything?`, `do i have a soul?`, what is the nature of human existance?` and other classical philosophical questions are important to all of us. and are issues that we deal with every day.

These questions are as important or more important to me than most scientific questions
If that is your response then these can all be answered 'scientifically'. The only reason they cannot is because they aren't clearly defined.

What is a soul, for example?
These questions by thier very nature cannot be answered scientificly.

Good question, What is a soul? [/b]
What is a soul?
A primitive explanation for personality.
- - -
I managed it ok.

[Delirium]

Congrads, if you want to accept that as a defination of a soul.

[Dark Exodus]

Originally posted by Datura [email protected] 26 2005, 04:15 AM
Congrads, if you want to accept that as a defination of a soul.
Give me a better one.

Or is that 'impossible'?

[Delirium]

Originally posted by Dark [email protected] 26 2005, 05:20 PM


Or is that 'impossible'?
It very well may be.

[Hegemonicretribution]

It's interesting that this question "comes up" from time to time on this board. I'm pretty sure it never arises on boards that consist of actual working scientists and young people who want to become scientists.
That is because they choose to accept science as absolute.


To them, the scientific method is self-evident...it works in discovering "what is really going on" in natural phenomena.
Not to all, however there are those from all areas of the realism debate that can see the use of science.


Is there or has there been any other "method for understanding" with such an exemplary track-record?
It has to be said scientfic method does have the best track record, not that there is much to go against.


I find it therefore disappointing that those with an interest in changing human societies sometimes manifest "skepticism" or even "cynicism" about the scientific method.
But why? I don't accept science as absolute because of economic limitations, but also because of reliance on induction. This does not mean that I do not science. On one side there are people that hold science is absolutely true, and others that claim it is crap. I accept it works, and this is what matters because application will not be affected by this view. I just eliminate the concept that is problematic with the all or nothing approach to science "truth."

Truth is one of those ideas that really are not that useful. Think about what this really means, in most cases it is subjective, and two opposite views could hold true within their premises, I just ignore it. If something works then Yay, if not then I won't use it. But by accepting it as true I am grounding this belief as unfalsifiable, truth encourages defense against possible new truths. Science works best without truth.


I find particularly irritating the "criticism" that science can't be "proved" to be "really true".
You know the answers to such questions as well as I...they act "as if" science is really true.
I think that's the reasonable assumption based on accumulated historical performance. It's what "we all do" if we have any sense at all.

Well they act as if science works, and no-one is denying this. If science works but can't be proved true, then why not just accept science working, and truth as irrelevant. Concluding it is true just adds something uneccessary to an otherwise valuable method.


It's true that there are "why questions" that science "cannot answer". But are they real questions?

I submit that a "question" without any empirically confirmable answer is not a real question at all. It may "sound like" a question but it's actually just noise.
You are using the word "question" in a different way, why must a question be answerable? If that is what you take a question to be then you are determining your own correctness. If you see a question as something else than this then you may well reject this view. I do understand the point you are making.


Will you learn to use the method that's worked or do you prefer superstitious fantasies or the conceits of philosophy?

Philosophy of science is useful, and itself created much of modern scientific thought. Science may have given us many material objects that work, but philosophy has given us concepts in which we can apply this.

If it wasn't for philosophy would the idea of equallity ever have arisen? Or would it have been scientifically concluded? Of course this also goes for concepts we see as negative. Philosophy has its role and science another, on many levels they rely on each other.

[Dark Exodus]

Originally posted by Datura inoxia+Nov 26 2005, 05:22 PM--> (Datura inoxia @ Nov 26 2005, 05:22 PM)
Dark [email protected] 26 2005, 05:20 PM


Or is that 'impossible'?
It very well may be. [/b]
Then the question itself is completely inane.

What does yellow smell like? Oh, but that isn't profound like questions to do with 'souls'.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Publius(?)
Is it?

Or are logic, history, philosophy and math integral as well?

How does a 'materialist' gather information?

I would say science is the only 'materialist' mode. Correct? It depends what you are trying to do.

The first step to solving a problem is to understand the problem!

Philosophy is useless, first of all.

Math is not, it is an exercise for logic (also useful). It is fantastic for creating models of complex systems. In this respect, programming is actually another fantastic skill.

I've said this elsewhere but I'll repeat myself, just as the Ancient Greeks had their geometry so too do we have programming.

In the social sciences, history is extremely useful. In the hard sciences it isn't.

I would suggest reading: Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Descartes Rules for the Direction of the Mind and Isaac Newton's Rules for Reasoning in Natural Philosophy (part of book 3(?) in his Principia found here (http://marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/newton.htm) near the bottom of the page).

[dakewlguy]

In the social sciences, history is extremely useful. In the hard sciences it isn't.
Historical analysis has been used to show how in the hard science there does in fact exist biases and distorted perspectives, and basically dominant paradigms that limit all alternative research.

[Publius]

Any response to my points about a priori knowledge?

[ComradeRed]

Historical analysis has been used to show how in the hard science there does in fact exist biases and distorted perspectives, and basically dominant paradigms that limit all alternative research. True, but I cannot discover anything in -- say -- physics by researching the history of physics. I can research the paradigms, as you suggest, yet I could also recalculate their work in various ways.

It depends how lazy you are ;)


Any response to my points about a priori knowledge? Read Language, Truth, and Logic by A.J. Ayer. He has fascinating arguments on a priori knowledge. For example, it's a giant tautology and thus nothing can really be accomplished with it.

[John Dory]

Science is the only way to understand REALITY; i.e. the material world.


Or are logic, history, philosophy and math integral as well?

All of the above are sciences, or at the very least forms of sciences. With the exception, of course, of logic which is simply what is thought to be known. For example, if we look up at the night sky and see those 'twinkling things' we say, logically, that there is a star there. Science, however, teaches us that this is not always true, there may have been a star there but it may be long dead and gone by the time that its light reaches us. Science teaches us cold truth the way that nothing else does. This in a world where even our eyes can lie to us!

[jambajuice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 04:01 PM
I first of all have issue with what you mean by scientfic method, but I take it that you mean that of hypotheico deductivism? as a prevailing trend in scientific though.

If so, then I would say that it cannot provide knowledge, but is actually the best method we have realised in our understanding of our material condition. Maths alone is tautological in nature and pretty useless as LSD pointed out, and seperating it from science is like seperating words from language, only more so because the language of math is far more fixed in definition than the more subjective and transiant language of the written word.

I am not sure if it is always the best method for examing a particular issue however. Science is studied at different levels, because essentially physical knwledge may help partially in understanding of chemistry, but if you go to a biological level, then explanation in terms of sub-atomic partcles is not sufficient for understanding.

The problem arises perhaps at the level of social science. Essentially true scientific method becomes very difficult here, because replication of results, or even controls can prove impossible. You can not examine a conscious being with relation to only one aspect of what exactly makes it worthy of study. For example you can't say "A woman will buy this because.. (insert general law)" for the simple matter that there are too many other governing factors.

Controls are also very difficult to implement at this level for another reason also. Conscious beings learn, and so repeating an experiment will often reveal different results. Also the dominance of any particular influence at any given time is also subject to change. Reaction to weather may well be subject to current health, response to an economic climate (macro) will be subject to the individual's (micro) economic condition.

For these reasons it is often unrealistic to apply the same methods to beings which possess consciousness.
Can someone explain what he just posted in english?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 07:25 AM
Can someone explain what he just posted in english?
Basically I was looking for clarification, of what was meant by "science."

I argued maths as another language. Less ambiguous than spoken language, but a language nontheless.

I then said that various sciences exist, and why not just a fundamental science such as physics is required.

The main point was that in social sciences scientific method as it stands would be nice, but it is not compatible.

The expanded answer was posted because there is no point just posting an oppinion, reasoning behind it is important. Sorry I took so long to reply but the topic sunk.