Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

<< home  

What is Science?

Threads - Whoops,  What is this thing called Science?


SCIENCE: A way of finding things out and then making them work. Science explains what is happening around us the whole time. So does RELIGION, but science is better because it comes up with more understandable excuses when it is wrong. There is a lot more Science than you think.
From A Scientific Encyclopedia for the Enquiring Young Nome
by Angalo de Haberdasheri
(Terry Pratchett, Wings)

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ...'
Isaac Asimov

In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite.
It is a very sad thing that nowadays there is so little useless information.
Oscar Wilde

 

On  27/9/2002, Toby Fiander posted:

The once again absent Morris Gray, said on 2 December, 1997 on this list (typos are mine):

Science is an attitude.

Man observes the universe as a stranger, making imaginative guesses about its structure and workings.  He cannot approach the world without such bold conjectures in the background, for every
observed fact presupposes an interpretive focus.

In science, these conjectures must be continually and systematically tested;  yet however many tests are successfully passed, any theory can never be viewed as more than an imperfectly corroborated conjecture.  At any time, a new test could falsify it.  No scientific truth is immune to such a possibility.  Even the basic facts are relatives, always potentially subject to a radical reinterpretation in a new
framework.

Man can  never claim to know the real essences of things.  Before the virtual infinitude of the world's phenomena, human ignorance itself is infinite.  The wisest strategy is to learn from one's mistakes and try to remain objective and humble.

[ends]

I have suggested previously that this be on the quotes list.  Perhaps no one sees the value of it, as I do.  I will put it back on my fridge door again now.

At 08:21  26/09/02 +1000, Sue wrote:
>At 08:26 PM 09/25/02 +1000, Jacqueline wrote:
  
>  Like me you read the wrong info, and therefore made a wrong opinion...
>>This is a misunderstanding of critical thought.  It also assumes that
>>science is a matter of mere opinion, which is rarely the case.
>I'm still laughing at that one Toby. Thanks.
Ian Musgrave replied:

Science isn't a matter of _mere_ opinion. Opinion may be involved to a greater or lesser degree, but there is always this inconvenient thing called evidence that is involved somewhere along the line.
>One day scientists will be 'hoist on their own petard' (spelling?) if they
>keep making claims that only science can provide facts and truths.
Since no scientist claims this (since about 1930, when Logical Positivism got thrashed), and Toby didn't claim this, how is it relevant?
>They'll have to prove it and then where will they be.
Proof is for alcohol and mathematicians, science deals with evidence. Science also doesn't deal with "Truth" (tm), but with the best available models supported by robust evidence. Science _is_ about "facts", it is not (nor is it claimed to be) the only way to get at facts (adversarial legal systems are one way to get facts), but it _is_ the most effective way to get facts about the natural world (and in some ways is just a more rigorous, formalised way of how ordinary people get facts about the natural world).

Now if someone on this list were to claim that eating 2 kilos of carrots a day cured cancer, prevented tooth decay and made you sexy, and I said this was incorrect. would you say this difference was simply a matter of opinion, or might a few of those horrible little science-derived facts (such as cancer and caries rates in carrot eaters) be involved in evaluating this claim?

Sue Wright responded:

Ian wrote lots - as evidenced below (and I think we have been here before :-)

Having read a few books about science (method and history) but having no great claim to any knowledge about science as applied method. I think there's enough evidence to suggest that science is a very human and therefore not an idiot proof endeavour.

I suggest 'the scientific method' in theory can be 'pure' but when applied, it's mostly applied by well trained but fairly imperfect humans. And, I believe, when all is said and done findings are still opinion. Might be damn fine opinions supported by a great deal of evidence - but it's still opinion.

And to pick up on one point - science doesn't always deal with evidence. There are a few books around that suggest that evidence (such as some cancers are caused by viruses) are simply dismissed because they're not popular and threaten the status quo within the scientific community at the time [sorry don't have the reference with me - but  the virus thing is from article by Oliver Sacks on the topic of forgotten/dismissed evidence].

In terms of the carrots making you sexy thing .... I agree with your point. But in this instance, the person providing evidence is just trying to replace one opinion with another that's evidence-based.

Zero Sum replied:

On Thursday 26 September 2002 11:06, Sue Wright wrote:
> > Zero
> >Where they will be is exactly where they are now. That is the point.
>
> Sue
> And ... where they are now is sometimes only relative to the funding
> that allows them to be there (reference ... see many of Gerald's
> emails re poliies).
>
> Sue
> (In response I was going to say "What! ........ Drunk" - but I
> thought it would be crass and in all probability most untrue).
> (Morning Toby :-). It's easier picking on scientists they don't want
> to counsel you about it afterwards or have a group hug or a
> debriefing process).
>

Don't miss (or exchange) the theoretical with the practical.

Where scientists will be is *exactly* where they are now.  There is no change in philosophy needed, that is how science works.  That is the "idea".

In practise, people are people as well as scientists and do "non-scientific" things.   Possibly (undoubtably) some will violate philosophies and ethics for employment.  People are people.

That says nothing about "science" or "scientists" in the abstract.

So, here comes your counselling (I'm an engineer, not a scientist).

Your attitude is confused, you confound the ideal with the actual, your comment is offensive in that it places all "scientists" at a least ethical level and denigrates the profession and entire following.

Basicly, I found your comment crass, untrue and insulting.  Accusing the entire profession of being drunks would have been milder...
Sue  responded:

People are scientists.

As far as I can recall I did not insult anyone - much less a whole profession.

 From memory Gerald's emails over time have continually raised the issue of the importance of funding - and the political imperative. This is simply practical.

I do not feel in the slightest confused - and I have a tendency not to confuse the ideal with the practical. Hence my attitude towards science and scientists as practitioners of the scientific method and my comment on funding.

I do not idealize science or scientists in the same way that I do not idealize my own 'profession' or industry. This does not mean I have no respect for science.

In practical and not idealized terms, I suggest what and who gets funded plays a significant role in what gets researched. I hold up the current direction taken by ARC as an example of this.

I said nothing about ethics or the personal decisions made by science practitioners.
Zero replied:
> People are scientists.
> As far as I can recall I did not insult anyone - much less a whole profession.
You said:
    One day scientists will be 'hoist on their own petard' (spelling?) if they keep making claims that only science can provide facts and truths.  They'll have to prove it and then where will they be.

The first is a "have you stopped beating your wife?" comment.  Scientists don't make those claims in the manner you propose. It is completely contrary to it's very principles.  To argue in such a manner insults not only the profession but the very practise of science.  IMNSHO.

As I said, you confuse the principle with the actual, the religion with it's adherents, the profession and its followers.

No, you are correct, you did not insult anyone, you insulted everyone.
Can you see the difference that I see?
>  From memory Gerald's emails over time have continually raised the
> issue of the importance of funding - and the political imperative.
> This is simply practical.
Yes, actual, not theoretical.
> I do not feel in the slightest confused - and I have a tendency not
> to confuse the ideal with the practical. Hence my attitude towards
> science and scientists as practitioners of the scientific method and
> my comment on funding.
But you are suggesting by this either a general lack of ethics and promotion of self interest or a general stupidity on the part of scientists and practitioners of the scientific method.  This is what
I find insulting.   I would suggest that there are fewer deliberate frauds in the scientific community than outside it and that those are usually caught out.

People may lie to get funding - but that says nothing about science or scientists in general.

There are other areas where integrity is extremely rare rather than the reverse (as is usual in science).
> I do not idealize science or scientists in the same way that I do
> not idealize my own 'profession' or industry. This does not mean I
> have no respect for science.
But you choose to emphasise and exagerate the *potential* flaws of scientists into an actuality that is not common.
> In practical and not idealized terms, I suggest what and who gets
> funded plays a significant role in what gets researched. I hold up
> the current direction taken by ARC as an example of this.
What gets researched is NOT, NOT, NOT the emphasis or concern of science.  Only how it is done.  It may well be the personal concern of some scientists, but when they involved in that they are not
acting *as* scientists but as human beings.  Human beings are falible while science is not.  People can make a scientific mistake, science can not.
It is the same as "guns don't shoot people, people shoot people".
> I said nothing about ethics or the personal decisions made by
> science practitioners.
Then we are interpreting the same sentences in very different ways. (it happens)
Sue retorted:

Sheesh Zero .... I'm not suggesting that they lie steal and cheat to get funding. Merely that they rely on getting funding to carry out 'science' and this has a significant impact on what scientists can apply their scientific method to. Even though I'm sure there are independently wealthy scientists and science volunteers beavering away on independent projects - but much of the work would be funded somehow I should think. And if it is
it their work would be tied to working towards achieving the outcomes of the organisation they're working for.
IMHO this says a great deal about science, as an industry, in general.
>There are other areas where integrity is extremely rare rather than
>the reverse (as is usual in science).
>
>But you choose to emphasise and exagerate the *potential* flaws of
>scientists into an actuality that is not common.
>
>What gets researched is NOT, NOT, NOT the emphasis or concern of
>science.
I disagree. But only because I do not see science as just 'method' I see also see it as an industry and a pretty damn competitive one at that.  I have stated before that the only way I can see for the scientific method to
remain 'pure' is for it not to be applied by humans at all.
>Only how it is done.  It may well be the personal concern of some
>scientists, but when they involved in that they are not acting *as*
>scientists but as human beings.  Human beings are falible while science is
>not.  People can make a scientific mistake, science can not.
Science as applied does not happen without human beings. Therefore, in my book, saying that science is not fallible is a moot point. Human beings are fallible, hence 'science'  must be tainted by this in some way. It doesn't
remove fallibility or make it redundant - science, as process, is just a good way of making sure fallibility is acknowledged, contained and limited.
>It is the same as "guns don't shoot people, people shoot people".
But, why make the guns in the first place if it's not to shoot things, including people.

A discussion on the likelihood of  the Raelians actually having produced a cloned human being veered into the nature of  science and  scientific proof.  Among the comments were:

On the 11/1/2003, Chris Lawson wrote:
At 09:13 11/01/03 +1030, Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue wrote:

Note that this account, seems to imply some sort "progress" which is
>anathema to history and philosophy of science types. I will claim that
>there is progress, and with each iteration  we get better approximations of
>an underlying "reality".
I think the original objections were to the concept that science is progressing to a specified end-point when all will be known. This concept was, of course, held by only a small fraction of scientists at any time, even the late 19th century. It was also an objection to the concept that science moved by incrementally improving the existing theories, when the overthrow of Newton by relativity showed that the two theories, as theories, were utterly different. Even though mathematically Newtonian physics is a special case of relativity, the explanatory framework behind the theories can not be described as incrementally different.

But some of the historians who saw this plain truth took it to ridiculous extremes, and in attacking the rather narrow concept of scientific progress (which almost no scientist ever believed in), they also attacked *any* sort of scientific progress. This was, of course, because these critics generally had no understanding of science. They were attacking a common myth of science held by non-scientists, and used that attack to catch real scientific progress in the cross-fire.

You might have guessed that I have little time for many so-called philosophers or historians of science. Kuhn has earned his place, but Feyerabend and Lakatos and their ilk are puffed up little intellects who think that throwing around oblique, deliberately controversial, poorly defined concepts, preferably in French, is a substitute for argument and analysis. And it still astonishes me that so many intellectuals fell for it. The problem is that the *pro-rational* philosophers like David Stove make as big a mess of it as the anti-rationalists. Stove's "Anything Goes" is meant to be a defence of rationalism in science, but it is so full of errors and stupidities as to be worse than useless. It's like being accused of a terrible crime and having Slobodan Milosevic leap to your defence.

David Maddern added:

Fair go,

Science doesn't make things more probable, it seeks to, with increasing accuracy, describe the probability, describe the conditions under which some phenomenon occurs.  The only probability is the confidence that the event has not happened due to chance, otherwise known as  some extraneous force.

As for the theoretical "Science" on things such as the 13th dimension, black holes, event horizons then the best we can hope for without an observation is a mathematical proof  which may lead one into a higher confidence that the phenomenon even exists (mathematical proof) and (proof) are different things