Science - How reliable is it??

[guerrillaradio]

There is a skool of thought that believes that science is no more than a "useful fiction" (to quote Nietzsche). Science is based on rational thinking and logic, and rules invented by man. How much should we trust science?? Is it not possible that all science is based on human error??

[TheDerminator]

U can scientifically prove that U can kill someone with a primed bazooka, and it will work every time, if U try it out
in any active school of thought.

It will work every time! How more scientific can U get than that? An absolute fact! U can maybe take a few relativists down with U!

Resistance is Futile!

dermianated

[vox]

Science is a process, not a religion. There was a time when it was believed that light had to travel through ether, but that was disproven using "science."

It's true that people often misuse aspects of scientific knowledge, but that, I don't think, condemns science itself.

vox

[guerrillaradio]

Derminator - what an intelligent answer.

Vox - much of science is assumption though...supposed logic. I am not doubting that science has done a lot for mankind and society, but how much can we rely on it for the truth??

[Rosa]

1. "SCIENCE": mind activity that researches relations among existing phenomenons" (Aristotle's definition, which stands till present times)
2.science doesn't proove things, it researches possibillities and probability that some wiew response to the objective situation. There's never a definitive proof, thanks to logic, which science uses as an instrument. It always stays in categories of probability, and there's never 100% probability that some results can be generalised on entire system of phenomenas.

CONCLUSION: science attempts to give truth answers, but as I said: it's aware that it's not possible
YOU CAN'T RELY ON SCIENCE FOR THE TRUTH.
Manipulators and ignorants say the opposite, usually to
cheaply sell their wiews.

[deadpool 52]

Truth? Truth to what? Science can be used in many situations to dertermine what is needed to be found out.

[Blackberry]

Quote: from Rosa on 11:53 pm on April 8, 2002
1. "SCIENCE": mind activity that researches relations among existing phenomenons" (Aristotle's definition, which stands till present times)
2.science doesn't proove things, it researches possibillities and probability that some wiew response to the objective situation. There's never a definitive proof, thanks to logic, which science uses as an instrument. It always stays in categories of probability, and there's never 100% probability that some results can be generalised on entire system of phenomenas.

CONCLUSION: science attempts to give truth answers, but as I said: it's aware that it's not possible
YOU CAN'T RELY ON SCIENCE FOR THE TRUTH.
Manipulators and ignorants say the opposite, usually to
cheaply sell their wiews.


All papers that scientists submit are always closely scruitnised by many other scientists, so we can ASSUME that most papers are correct, or mostly.

[Rosa]

grrsh!: the papers are correct, but u'll never find 100% reliability in any original science-articles! Newspapers take out quotes from the context, and it's MISUSE of a science = it's NOT science.

[PunkRawker677]

i think its kind of ignorant to say 'you cant rely on science for the truth'... we cant rely on it to give us the truth about EVERYTHING.. but many, and most things have been proven.. for example - we know that we dont float because of gravity (if you cant tell me that that is unreliable then nothing is reliable and we might as well give up any hope of a better life)

[Rosa]

yes, but science will not made a statement "nobody will float if there's gravity"...and will not made a statement "no human being will float if on Earth, bcs of gravity". It's just not manner,form of scientific posits.
You can't say that all the crowds are black, bcs all the crowds ever seen were black. For science is rational activity, and it respects logic, so has "induction problem" built into itself

[vox]

"Vox - much of science is assumption though...supposed logic. I am not doubting that science has done a lot for mankind and society, but how much can we rely on it for the truth??"

I'm unclear as to what you mean by truth. I think that the statement "If you step out of a window 20 stories high, you will fall toward the ground and accelerate as you go" is true. Indeed, the rate of acceleration can be figured out. Anyone remember that equation? I know I knew it at one time....

Regardless, we can say that this is "true" because repeated "tests" have shown in to be true. We know that, on the moon, a feather and a hammer fall at the same rate. It was tested and the test confirmed the theory. Nothing too fancy about it, really. Again, we can say that this is a "true" statement, not a social construct.

We can go into more complex examples, like inferring a planet because of a star's wobble, if you like.

The great thing about science is that it's largely self-correcting. Remember the hubbub several years back about cold fusion? Turns out it didn't work. Other researchers tried to duplicate the results and could not. Like I said, science is a process.

vox

[peaccenicked]

As a trained scientist. I say the whole world can be viewed scientifically. We search for the best theories around, for what corresponds to the realties of life.
The question of truth is more complex, there is also the question of relevance.
There many different types of truth. When Robert Burns writes "My love is like a red red rose".
He expresses a poetic truth, that has very little to do with science. Science does have limits in that it represents a pole, or different level of human consciousness which is distinguished from art and is a polar opposite to ideology. .
"Theory as fiction" goes to the other extreme and posits only artistic types of truth.
This theory is useless and is merely an abstract chimera that does not uncover anything about the true nature of things.
In science, we develop models that correspond to empirical observation, we compare our observations with previous ones, we refine our thinking. Yet elementary truths prevail. The laws of arithmetic, the theory of gravity at low speeds, the photosynthesis of plants in biology. The truth is that the absolute contains the relative and the relative contains the absolute.
In artistic expression, this is also true there is an absolute element in emotions and a relative element in there description and form of description. The point is not to make bland universalisations but to make more refined differentiations."Theory as fiction'', tells us nothing but says everything the capitalists want to say about socialism.


(Edited by peaccenicked at 12:01 pm on April 9, 2002)

[guerrillaradio]

Doesn't science sometimes search for the quickest answer though?? Much of scientific tests which "prove" a theory are actually done in such a way that is it likely that the theory will be "proved". Scientists start an experiment already knowing what they want the results to be. Of course, certain scientific facts are known for sure, but what about scientific theories, particularly in relation to outer space and the ocean??

[peaccenicked]

You can point to bad practises. However, you can also point to good practices. Some theories are perhaps fanciful and are shots in the dark. It would be good practise to say something is our best guess so far
and that only new data, or observations can challenge conjecture, but if there is no conjecture we would have far less an idea of what we are looking for.
Much of science is in development and it is good to have a healthy scepticism, for without healthy scepticism it would never develop.

[vox]

"The laws of arithmetic, the theory of gravity at low speed..."

At low speeds or in large objects? I don't think I've heard about the effects of gravity changing at high speeds, sounds interesting.

Or did you mean that the increase of mass at very high speeds causes changes?

Just curious,

vox

PS What did you think of Julia Kristeva's idea that poetic language is "a formal system whose theorization can be based on [mathematical] set theory?"

(Edited by vox at 11:01 am on April 9, 2002)

[deadpool 52]

Science, knowledge, does not mean wisdom.

"There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. That's perfectly all right; they're the apperture to finding out what's right. Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny."--Carl Sagan

[TheDerminator]

vox, just on the point of

"What did you think of Julia Kristeva's idea that poetic language is "a formal system whose theorization can be based on [mathematical] set theory?"

It seems to me a complete non-starter as the basis of poetry. The problem is that good poetry has an aesthetic resonance, and this resonance is unquantifiable in any logical or mathematic formal construction.

Words have a sound. We hear the words in our consciousness, and it is the power of the resonance that engenders good poetry.

I'll leave it to peaccenicked to add anything else.

May the Force with U!

derminted

[peaccenicked]

Science does not equal wisdom, only the state of the art
in its field.
As to voxs question, it is a long time since I had to grapple with Einstein, but basically Force=mass X
acceleration
On earth it is 9.8
Approaching the speed of light acceleration, I would think tends toward zero, some theories say the speed of light can be surpassed. The laws of Gravity are open to various hypothesis at very high speeds.
The Derminator sums up my own views on formalism.

[vox]

I thought, in light of this conversation, the following editorial might be interesting to some:

Published on Monday, April 8, 2002 in the Boston Globe

A Chilling of Science

Editorial

IT WAS BAD enough when the Bush administration adopted wholesale the recommendations of big oil, coal companies, and the utilities in drawing up its energy policy for the United States. Now the administration is trying to extend US corporate influence to the international arena by blackballing the scientist who has led the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change since 1996.

Robert Watson is a respected atmospheric scientist who has become a pariah to energy industry officials opposed to measures aimed at reducing the greenhouse gas emissions of vehicles and power plants. His organization, a panel of 2,500 experts from around the world working under the auspices of the United Nations, reported last year last ''there is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.'' The report predicted that average global temperatures will rise by 3 to 10 degrees by the end of the century.

This was such an unwelcome message to the Bush administration that it asked the National Academy of Sciences for a second opinion. The National Academy came back with a report saying that the IPCC, which is highly regarded for its science-based assessments of global warming, was right. The more evidence there is of man-made sources of greenhouse gases, the greater the pressure on the Bush administration to curb carbon dioxide emissions, as candidate George Bush promised to do in 2000.

After taking office, Bush reneged on that pledge and renounced the emission reduction requirements of the Kyoto treaty. Now the Bush approach is to kill the global warming messenger, or at least Watson. The administration is favoring an Indian engineer and economist, Rajendra Pachauri, a vice chairman of the IPCC. Representatives of more than 100 countries will meet in Geneva later this month to choose a chairman.

Industry's effectiveness at pulling the strings of Bush officials is evident from a document obtained by the Natural Resources Defense Council. The Bush team had just come to office last year when ExxonMobil sent over a memorandum that criticized Watson and asked, ''Can Watson be replaced now at the request of the US?'' Last week other lobbyists for the auto and energy industries met with State Department officials to encourage it to favor Pachauri, as it finally did.

In a letter to the State Department on Watson's behalf, Daniel Lashof of the Natural Resources Defense Council said: ''The industry effort to block the reappointment of Dr. Watson is a thinly veiled attempt to undermine the effectiveness of the IPCC as a body that produces high quality, objective assessments.'' If representatives from other countries do not want both American and global climate policy made in Houston and Detroit, they will reelect Watson.

vox

[Nickademus]

there was a really good thread about this last summer i think. i think whoever started this (i can't remember who i'm sorry ) was looking at it from a philosophical view. as am i

i personally don't belive that science can find truths. science is the interpretation of data......i don't care that 99 out of 100 scientists agree, it is still interpretation of data and therefore is in some small way subjective. then you get into the idea of sollipsism. everything that we humans experience, know etc. is subjective. we really have no objective knowledge because we can not know or experience something without it being seen, heard, etc. through our sense....thus everything is subjective. until we escape this subjectivity we cannot know the truth because the truth is objective.

for example. you look out into the yard and see a tree. i look out into the yard and see a tree. and while both of us call it a tree we may not be seeing the same thing. and the object itself (the truth) may not be what either of us is actually seeing. it may be what you are seeing, but we cannot absolutely 100% know that. capice?

anyway, that is why i don't think that science is absolutely truthful or trustworthy

(sorry bout that folks.....was a philosophy major in my undergrad)

[vox]

Nickademus,

Though I find the idea you propose with your tree example very dubious, let's suppose it's true. The question then becomes, so what? If a stop sign looks different to everyone, but has the same effect, then what difference does it make? The relationship between the sign and the signifier is not objective, after all. Too, the idea of soilpsism encounters difficulty when we turn to geometry, for example. If we all saw very different things, say a triangle with four sides, then wouldn't there have to be a geometry for each person?

vox

[Valkyrie]

Good point with the stop sign Vox! Also the colorblindness test on this site would refute that we don't see material things in a different form, notwithstanding possibly a defect in the retina. It would be positive to say we all see the same concrete things, but what our brains tell us we see may in fact be quite different. And definetly we interepret things as to how we understand them and what values we give them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"What did you think of Julia Kristeva's idea that poetic language is "a formal system whose theorization can be based on [mathematical] set theory?"

It seems to me a complete non-starter as the basis of poetry. The problem is that good poetry has an aesthetic resonance, and this resonance is unquantifiable in any logical or mathematic formal construction.

Words have a sound. We hear the words in our consciousness, and it is the power of the resonance that engenders good poetry.
-----------------------------
I agree Derminator, and Wasn't it Wittgenstein who was trying to synthesize logical positivism with analytic philosophy in a failed attempt to analyze word usage and the misuse of, in univeralizing language down to it's most simplified parameter?

Let's not cast everything off to the sciences and kill the metaphoric art of poetry and writing.





(Edited by Paris at 8:19 pm on April 15, 2002)

[guerrillaradio]

Picking up on Nickademus' and Vox's debate, what comes down to is how far one is willing to go in search of truth, and how truth is defined. Vox's definition of truth is slightly shady, to say the least. Truth cannot be subjective, it is established fact, not opinion. The old maxim "truth is in the eye of the beholder" is inaccurate for this reason. Because noone can be sure (or should be sure) whether what they are seeing is truth, the search for truth is a long and hard one. If we are to consider Nietzsche's point that everything that we as humans perceive to be subjective, then truth becomes a non-human concept ie human beings will never experience or view truth because every one of our senses is subjective and offers an interpretation, rather than the fact. This is one of the many imperfections of the human race. Therefore, by looking at the tree, we are probably not seeing what the tree actually is, more what our brain tell us it looks like. Truth is unattainable to humanity.

[libereco]

well....science works, so it doesn't really matter if what we see is what the tree looks like or not. - We can still predict how far it will fly when we throw it.

[Malvinas Argentinas]

Science is quite dogmatic, it really dont accept other ideas than thems. Plus, AS the church, they cant explain anything fully

[Nickademus]

Quote: from guerrillaradio on 8:21 pm on April 15, 2002
Picking up on Nickademus' and Vox's debate, what comes down to is how far one is willing to go in search of truth, and how truth is defined. Vox's definition of truth is slightly shady, to say the least. Truth cannot be subjective, it is established fact, not opinion. The old maxim "truth is in the eye of the beholder" is inaccurate for this reason. Because noone can be sure (or should be sure) whether what they are seeing is truth, the search for truth is a long and hard one. If we are to consider Nietzsche's point that everything that we as humans perceive to be subjective, then truth becomes a non-human concept ie human beings will never experience or view truth because every one of our senses is subjective and offers an interpretation, rather than the fact. This is one of the many imperfections of the human race. Therefore, by looking at the tree, we are probably not seeing what the tree actually is, more what our brain tell us it looks like. Truth is unattainable to humanity.



thankk you, you articulated it better than i did. and the fact that something works doesn't make it a truth. (besides this is obviously a theoretical debate thus the fact that something works is irrelevant). in the middle ages it worked to think that the world was flat, didn't make it true.

[Valkyrie]

Yes, we see the outside of the tree, the bark, the leaves, the branches. We don't see the roots or the inside unless you dig it up or chop it down... but we are all seeing it as the outside of a tree, I should hope. Though, perhaps some of us look at a tree and see a surreality and observe it as a car maybe... if someone were to tell you that a tree was not a tree but you could get into it and drive it.. wouldn't you insist otherwise. Seeing a tree with bark and branches is a conceptual truth, and one that we need to have if we are going to be at all productive human beings.

[vox]

Hmmm, I don't recall defining truth, so I'm not sure what that was all about, really. I was not the one arguing solipsism, but the one arguing against it.

However, Nickademus said, "in the middle ages it worked to think that the world was flat, didn't make it true."

Well, no. It didn't work. That was a problem cartographers had. It's because it didn't work that the truth, that the world is round, won out, no?

Here's a fun little game: believe that everything you encounter is untrue and see how far that gets you. :)

vox

[Nickademus]

Quote: from Paris on 2:04 am on April 16, 2002
Yes, we see the outside of the tree, the bark, the leaves, the branches. We don't see the roots or the inside unless you dig it up or chop it down... but we are all seeing it as the outside of a tree, I should hope. Though, perhaps some of us look at a tree and see a surreality and observe it as a car maybe... if someone were to tell you that a tree was not a tree but you could get into it and drive it.. wouldn't you insist otherwise. Seeing a tree with bark and branches is a conceptual truth, and one that we need to have if we are going to be at all productive human beings.


k Paris lets use a different example....colour.....

i say that the screen here is white. you agree that it is white because language is built upon the knolwedge that when you see what you are seeing as this screen is white. i am also programed to associate this screen with the word white. HOWEVER, i may be actually seeing yellow while you are actually seeing green (minus the colour labels), but because there is an association between what you see and the word you call it white.

i hope that serves as a better example.

[Nickademus]

Quote: from vox on 4:29 am on April 16, 2002
Hmmm, I don't recall defining truth, so I'm not sure what that was all about, really. I was not the one arguing solipsism, but the one arguing against it.

However, Nickademus said, "in the middle ages it worked to think that the world was flat, didn't make it true."

Well, no. It didn't work. That was a problem cartographers had. It's because it didn't work that the truth, that the world is round, won out, no?

Here's a fun little game: believe that everything you encounter is untrue and see how far that gets you. :)

vox


i'm a law student...i never believe anything is true

just because something is not true doesn't mean we can't work with it. as has been shown with you stop sign example. while i know that that may not be what a stop sign actually is, i understand what it is suppossed to mean and therefore can follow that intention. doesn't mean i have to accept that in reality that it looks like it does. and i live my life like this every day. i don't believe we can know the truth and therefore that is my life EVERYDAY.

[Valkyrie]

Correction of my own post:: having said that seeing a tree with bark, etc was a conceptual truth, I mean that it is empirical; --- the conceptual truth is that it is called a tree. Still, I think it's imperative that we rely on empirical observation so as to try to be productive or atleast functional human beings.

Nickademus, I understand what you're saying.. and the tree was a good example in itself, even more so than the example of color, as color is a light frequency that is most definetly relative to the perception of the retina.

But, I think you are saying that our senses could be deceiving us into believing that what we observe (like a tree ) is universally true for everyone, when in fact it could be a universal deception in everyone, a sort of Cartesian paradox, as like, is our waking world the concrete world of reality or is the dream state- and how would one know conclusively as they're aren't any scientific measures or paradigms to prove absolutely otherwise.

Well, I read something tonight that kind of gave me pause... It said you cannot claim to know something if you also claim not to believe it. It stated that belief was a neccessary part of knowledge. (I don't know if I believe that!) It also went on to say that truth was also a requirement of knowledge. (I do believe that though)


(Edited by Paris at 8:35 am on April 16, 2002)

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from vox on 4:29 am on April 16, 2002
Here's a fun little game: believe that everything you encounter is untrue and see how far that gets you. :)


It's philosophy!!! It's not SUPPOSED to work in practical life...lol ;)

It would appear that me and Nickademus are taking the philosophical viewpoint whereas Vox and Paris are taking the scientific/logical one. I agree that the fact that something (eg a stop sign) gives the same message to the majority of people who cast eyes upon it doesn't make it a truth.

Paris - What kind of knowledge are you referring to?? I know that there is a religion called Christianity, doesn't necessarily mean I believe in it or think it's true.

[libereco]

who of the science critics has actually studied science at all?

[vox]

How to think like a scientist (http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/scientist.html).

vox

[Nickademus]

paris,.....its not that its a universal deception. we could in fact be seeing a treee the way a tree truely is, or maybe only a few of us are seeing it that way. but we can't really know if we are seeing it the way it truely is.

libereco. i've studied science, not extensively but i have studied science. i was much more of a math person (math just makes so much sense to me). i still, however, hold this belief. the fact that i have or haven't studied science really is irrelevant.

[Valkyrie]

Paris - What kind of knowledge are you referring to?? I know that there is a religion called Christianity, doesn't necessarily mean I believe in it or think it's true.

-----
I think he was referring to just run-of-the-mill knowlege. I don't necessarily believe in the first part of the proposition either; that to have knowlege of something you must believe it... but the second part, that knowlege must contain truth, I do believe. Such as Christianity, we may not believe in the context or tenents of christianity, but it is true that there is a religion called christianity.

I try to think both scientifically and metaphysically, though probably lean more toward the former.
The stop sign-- if you take the pre-test for a driver's license, the permit test.. it will ask questions about the stop sign... what color is it? red; what shape is it?... octagon or hexagon or whatever... what are you suppposed to do when you approach a stop sign?... come to a complete stop;.... All that is universally true for most people.. And also scientific to a degree as the color Red is a frequency that can be measured in light-waves, Octagons and hexagons are part of geometry a branch of mathematics, and to stop or go is part of forces of motion. Though one can argue that it's also just an inanimate pole in the ground ---another regulation set up by the powers that be, that people have to abide by or else get a hefty fine.



(Edited by Paris at 6:09 pm on April 16, 2002)

[Nickademus]

Quote: from Paris on 5:59 pm on April 16, 2002
Paris - What kind of knowledge are you referring to?? I know that there is a religion called Christianity, doesn't necessarily mean I believe in it or think it's true.

-----
I think he was referring to just run-of-the-mill knowlege. I don't necessarily believe in the first part of the proposition either; that to have knowlege of something you must believe it... but the second part, that knowlege must contain truth, I do believe. Such as Christianity, we may not believe in the context or tenents of christianity, but it is true that there is a religion called christianity.

I try to think both scientifically and metaphysically, though probably lean more toward the former.
The stop sign-- if you take the pre-test for a driver's license, the permit test.. it will ask questions about the stop sign... what color is it? red; what shape is it?... octagon or hexagon or whatever... what are you suppposed to do when you approach a stop sign?... come to a complete stop;.... All that is universally true for most people.. And also scientific to a degree as the color Red is a frequency that can be measured in light-waves, Octagons and hexagons are part of geometry a branch of mathematics, and to stop or go is part of forces of motion. Though one can argue that it's also just an inanimate pole in the ground ---another regulation set up by the powers that be, that people have to abide by or else get a hefty fine.



(Edited by Paris at 6:09 pm on April 16, 2002)


i have to disagree with you that the stop sign is a unviersal truth. i beleive it is a universally accepted norm (sorry, i'm picky about terms used because it makes communication that much easier). that every one associates it with one thing (namely stopping) doesn't make it a truth.

[peaccenicked]

Nickademus,
When it comes to truth, the question that is being asked is there such a thing as objective truth? I hope this is taken in good fun but I can well see why a lawyer might wish to abolish it. If truth is merely a matter of subjective interpretation, it is much more easy to demolish. Now if you are saying that DNA evidence is unreliable no matter how many scientists agree with it.
Then you can argue that that is ultimately unreliable.
If we can not trust our senses, which much surely must go beyond subjective feelings, then we must say that truth is relative to societies needs and absolute in the sense that we cannot rid ourselves of society without riding ourselves of humanity.
If we spend our lives agonising over the reliability of every truth then nothing would get done. The fact that questions about reliability crop up at the most uncomfortable of times would suggest that truth has a objective nature and is not a matter of subjective whim at all.
Indeed the role of the left is to work out the truth of class interests in each and every situation, not as a dogma but as an aid to understanding and action.
Truth itself is of many natures, one of them is that of passion, one that is imbibed beyond the words but is in the context. The signifier matches the signified with gusto. I find this in the anger of the oppressed.

[Nickademus]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 8:06 pm on April 16, 2002
Nickademus,
When it comes to truth, the question that is being asked is there such a thing as objective truth? I hope this is taken in good fun but I can well see why a lawyer might wish to abolish it. If truth is merely a matter of subjective interpretation, it is much more easy to demolish. Now if you are saying that DNA evidence is unreliable no matter how many scientists agree with it.
Then you can argue that that is ultimately unreliable.
If we can not trust our senses, which much surely must go beyond subjective feelings, then we must say that truth is relative to societies needs and absolute in the sense that we cannot rid ourselves of society without riding ourselves of humanity.
If we spend our lives agonising over the reliability of every truth then nothing would get done. The fact that questions about reliability crop up at the most uncomfortable of times would suggest that truth has a objective nature and is not a matter of subjective whim at all.
Indeed the role of the left is to work out the truth of class interests in each and every situation, not as a dogma but as an aid to understanding and action.
Truth itself is of many natures, one of them is that of passion, one that is imbibed beyond the words but is in the context. The signifier matches the signified with gusto. I find this in the anger of the oppressed.


ok there is a difference between between doubting everything as to whether or not its true and accepting that you can not know whether or not something is true. i won't argue the science of dna (ironically i just finished a forensic science class on dna) in court as it is futile because it has become an accepted norm. i live my life on accepted norms. i don't question everything because i can not know if it is the truth or not.

[Valkyrie]

"How to think like a scientist."

That was a very amusing story Vox, thanks!