Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok, here's my random thought for the day... I'll try to keep it from being too messy.
First off, I love science. I'm fascinated by it and have been since I was a kid, so this isn't an attack per se, nor is it a suggestion that we abandon science entirely. That said, I think I can argue the house of Science is built on a foundation of sand and prove it within the rules of science itself. Let me explain:
Say you are trying to disprove the existence of Bigfoot in a certain forest. You survey and tromp around but see nothing so you instead investigate 100 sighting reports and work through each and every one, eventually conclusively proving 99 of them are false. But 1 report leads you to discover that you can see a bigfoot standing by a tree at a specific time on a specific day every week. Soon dozens of other investigators have seen and documented Bigfoot just as you have and come to a consensus on the matter; Bigfoot is real (and a stickler for good attendance! )
This of course is a not so serious example of the scientific method in action. You start with a hypothesis (Bigfoot isn't real), test that hypothesis (investigate the reports, weed out the possibilities) and if contrary evidence presents itself, do everything possible to make sure it isn't a fluke with repeat testing and peer review. But in the end and despite having worked 99 other times, it only took 1 scientifically verifiable contrary circumstance to blow the hypothesis that Bigfoot wasn't real out of the water.
Still with me?
OK, the next important concept, What is Science for and what is the fundamental basis of scientific understanding? The basic truth, the one thing that all other scientific endeavors are built on?
I'd argue Science exists as a means to answer Man's deepest questions about the world around us... the "Big Questions" that Religion failed to give us answers to. What am I? Why am I here? Where am I going?
Well, science gives us what would seem to be great (if not necessarily spiritually fulfilling) answers to those questions...
...but ALL science is based on one assumption, that our physical world exists independently from our minds... that it was here before our mind was, operates independently while our mind is "on" and will continue to exist after our mind is gone. In other words, we're just along for the ride in a great big, potentially predictable but not directly influenceable universe.
Now because we're basically just observers to things that happen outside of our heads, science can be applied to predict the how, why and when behind what the outside world does...and work it does, 99 times. But on the hundredth time, you see bigfoot :
In a nutshell, the mere act of conscious observation changes the outcome of the double slit test, directly contradicting the assumption that what's in our heads has no direct bearing on what's outside them.
So to be fair, science is still ruminating on this (among other) problems that simply don't fit in the current paradigm, but does this mean science has ultimately failed as a true and accurate way of understanding the world? Sure it managed to create all sorts of interesting stuff, but in the end a cellphone, a nuclear power plant or a Saturn V rocket is just a human tool to do something a human wants to do, only better. They are all far more complicated but in essence no different than a signaling horn, a campfire or a wagon.
If all our scientific achievement really just boils down to being good tool creators/users but fails to correctly explain the nature of our existence, is science truly relevant as a belief system?
If all our scientific achievement really just boils down to being good tool creators/users but fails to correctly explain the nature of our existence, is science truly relevant as a belief system?
There are so many holes in your argument that I find myself too lazy to address them all. However, science is not a belief system. Tell yourself you don't believe in science or gravity and step off a cliff. But perhaps you are right. Since you will be dead, that experiment probably won't prove anything to YOU.
There are so many holes in your argument that I find myself too lazy to address them all. However, science is not a belief system. Tell yourself you don't believe in science or gravity and step off a cliff. But perhaps you are right. Since you will be dead, that experiment probably won't prove anything to YOU.
Not too lazy to make an asshat comment though.
Come on, tear it up. I didn't post it to preach, just trying to develop the idea... you know, doin' science 'n stuff.
Science gives us the empirical ability to examine the world in a measurable way. That's all. I never thought it was THE answer to everything; nothing is.
And in the world of science there are plenty of unsolvable things:
That doesn't mean that science doesn't work as intended.
---
And although we can argue philosophically about science and not come to any real satisfying conclusion about our morality, meta-physics and epistemology; it doesn't mean we should throw out philosophy either:
I guess I agree with the implicit argument that science fails in answering the ultimate WHY, because I don't think that was ever science's point.
Sure there are paradoxes, unsolved dilemmas and the like, but you don't start over from scratch. You build upon the ideas of others and perhaps change your viewpoint to try to answer questions about the external world. And that's one of the admirable traits of both science and philosophy; the ability to be agile, ignorant, humble and inquisitive.
---
The double-slit experiment video was very interesting; and initially I doubted that observation had anything to do with the experiment as the observer was non-sentient.
Also, the only thing I could say is an issue with science, or any other field is the insular nature of said field and myopic vision of a particular study.
The struggle to get ideas heard within the field of science was also a running theme throughout "Cosmos" and it was something that they didn't really address. Ironically they didn't answer that WHY.
More to the point, it suggested that religion, government, corporations, egos, greed, even the scientific community kept ideas from being heard and accepted and it didn't provide any reason why that was the case; or how to solve those sorts of issues.
In a nutshell, the mere act of conscious observation changes the outcome of the double slit test, directly contradicting the assumption that what's in our heads has no direct bearing on what's outside them.
This interpretation of the double-slit experiment is not accurate. It is not the act of conscious observation that changes the outcome of the double slit experiment, but the method of observation or interaction with the photon (the apparatus), that determines the result.
You could run the experiments with no human being present and the outcome would be as described by Jim Al-Khalili. Human consciousness plays no part the running of the experiment. It only comes into play when you read the result.
Ok, here's my random thought for the day... I'll try to keep it from being too messy.
First off, I love science. I'm fascinated by it and have been since I was a kid, so this isn't an attack per se, nor is it a suggestion that we abandon science entirely. That said, I think I can argue the house of Science is built on a foundation of sand and prove it within the rules of science itself. Let me explain:
Say you are trying to disprove the existence of Bigfoot in a certain forest. You survey and tromp around but see nothing so you instead investigate 100 sighting reports and work through each and every one, eventually conclusively proving 99 of them are false. But 1 report leads you to discover that you can see a bigfoot standing by a tree at a specific time on a specific day every week. Soon dozens of other investigators have seen and documented Bigfoot just as you have and come to a consensus on the matter; Bigfoot is real (and a stickler for good attendance! )
This of course is a not so serious example of the scientific method in action. You start with a hypothesis (Bigfoot isn't real), test that hypothesis (investigate the reports, weed out the possibilities) and if contrary evidence presents itself, do everything possible to make sure it isn't a fluke with repeat testing and peer review. But in the end and despite having worked 99 other times, it only took 1 scientifically verifiable contrary circumstance to blow the hypothesis that Bigfoot wasn't real out of the water.
Still with me?
Not really. First- a hypothesis typically isn't going to include a negative like disprove. It's going to set out to prove. Second- hypotheses are typically based on knowledge. They aren't pulled out of thin air like a case with big foot. I also do not see why any scientist would assume s/he was seeing big-foot. It's either there or not and if it's there then there are a boat load of genetic tests to be done to confirm or establish species. If there is no evidence other than sightings it just sounds like folk seeing UFOs.
Quote:
So to be fair, science is still ruminating on this (among other) problems that simply don't fit in the current paradigm, but does this mean science has ultimately failed as a true and accurate way of understanding the world? Sure it managed to create all sorts of interesting stuff, but in the end a cellphone, a nuclear power plant or a Saturn V rocket is just a human tool to do something a human wants to do, only better. They are all far more complicated but in essence no different than a signaling horn, a campfire or a wagon.
If all our scientific achievement really just boils down to being good tool creators/users but fails to correctly explain the nature of our existence, is science truly relevant as a belief system?
Science is not a belief system. It's an approach, which exists independent of the individual, to understanding and manipulating our environment. These passionate yearnings to understand why we are here + whatever other questions are more about the individual.
Science is not a belief system.
It is a tool.
Like any tool, it can be used inappropriately and with terrible consequences.
Or it can be used to serve mankind.
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
"the world of science and technology"
synonyms: branch of knowledge, body of knowledge/information, area of study, discipline, field More
Well, I preface this with I'm not a scientist nor am I a Mathematician but I have taken extensive classes in Physics and in Math. So, in short, I agree with your sentiment but I disagree with your examples and presentation.
So, the Bigfoot example does not characterize the scientific method nor does it provide a proper analogy of the scientific method. The purpose of the scientific method is to attempt to disprove the hypothesis. When I was taught Physic it was made very clear to me the scientific method cannot prove anything it can only disprove. So, you do start out with a hypothesis. Fine. However, the critical point is not so much the hypothesis but your experiment, the justification for it and how the results of the experiment will attempt to disprove the hypothesis. Now, this part may be wrong and someone with more experience has to chime in, but the rigors of science do not require 99% certainty as in 99 out of a hundred is sufficient. Instead, the rigors of science require certain statistical tests which are relevant at the 99 percentile level. So for example, the R^2, t-test, f-test. Keep in mind this is different and far more stringent than ninety-nine out of a hundred or what have you. So at the end of the day, whether Bigfoot exists is not a scientific question. Why? While there might be the semblance--keep in mind what constitutes a hypothesis is more rigorous than just a claim-- of a hypothesis, there is not a method of experimentation to disprove it.
Now, I agree with your sentiment though. There was a time prior to the nineteenth century where Science meant almost exclusively Physics. The best way to think of it was there was a sort of tier system among scientists and different pursuits were not considered equal and many were even looked down upon. For example, Chemistry really only gains recognition as a, "worthy," science after the development of the Periodic Table. Prior to that Chemistry and Alchemy were pretty much interchangeable. Biology only begins to be considered a science after the theory of Evolution, prior to the theory of Evolution Biology and Naturalism were pretty much interchangeable. Now, we have the so called, "social sciences," which are pretty unscientific by the standards of the hard sciences. So, you claim of interpretation and perception pretty much characterize all the social sciences--political science, Economics, psychology, sociology...etc...I have found in that unlike Physics where Statistics is just a perfunctory tool, in the Social Sciences the Statistics is the Science. This is problematic because interpretation of Statistics is an art and not a science.
Well, I preface this with I'm not a scientist nor am I a Mathematician but I have taken extensive classes in Physics and in Math. So, in short, I agree with your sentiment but I disagree with your examples and presentation.
So, the Bigfoot example does not characterize the scientific method nor does it provide a proper analogy of the scientific method. The purpose of the scientific method is to attempt to disprove the hypothesis. When I was taught Physic it was made very clear to me the scientific method cannot prove anything it can only disprove. So, you do start out with a hypothesis. Fine. However, the critical point is not so much the hypothesis but your experiment, the justification for it and how the results of the experiment will attempt to disprove the hypothesis. Now, this part may be wrong and someone with more experience has to chime in, but the rigors of science do not require 99% certainty as in 99 out of a hundred is sufficient. Instead, the rigors of science require certain statistical tests which are relevant at the 99 percentile level. So for example, the R^2, t-test, f-test. Keep in mind this is different and far more stringent than ninety-nine out of a hundred or what have you. So at the end of the day, whether Bigfoot exists is not a scientific question. Why? While there might be the semblance--keep in mind what constitutes a hypothesis is more rigorous than just a claim-- of a hypothesis, there is not a method of experimentation to disprove it.
Interesting. Are you speaking of the null hypothesis? I remember this stuff from college stats classes, but I cannot imagine how I would design experiments to disprove a hypothesis in the day to day at work (at least in the physical chem space I work in). I'm certainly no philosopher of science, but I don't sit down with my boss, review a project (which is always based around a hypothesis) and set out to disprove anything. Instead, I try to find evidence for the positive- quality A of a subset of molecules correlates in observed phenomenon B under specified conditions. I set out to show quality A exists via a robust experiment and then correlate that data to the phenomenon under the specified conditions.
I do agree that 99% certainty doesn't have much meaning across the board. It all depends on the situation, the questions, the potential consequences/stakes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) 
