Philosophy of science discussion

[ebola?]

This thread is for generalized discussion about the philosophy of science. What do you think the ontological and epistemological underpinnings of science are (perhaps varying by discipline)? Does current scientific research present implications for which types of epistemologies and ontologies we should adopt? What are the limits to what scientific research can say about the world? What types of knowledge does scientific research produce?

ebola

 

[Wontblonk]

Modern science emerged as a way of explaining the world without supernatural or spiritual entities. It has an inherently naturalist perspective of reality, and involves other assumptions that are somewhat arbitrary - e.g., reality has some kind of order, the human mind can comprehend that order, etc. It is basically empirical, and only considers physical data.

What is exciting is that we are now starting to introduce a postmodern science which can take into account those biases. I don't know what that will lead to, but at least it seems to be encouraging scientists to be less dogmatic about their assumptions about reality.

Still, I think it will be a long time before that takes real hold. The naturalist paradigm of modern science will be as hard to transcend as the pre-modern religious attitudes have been.

 

[ebola?]

I think I'll have to seed this.

I think that the proper unit of analysis is the experimental complex, which is the process that ties together the observer and the observed, not the object of observation or experimental manipulation considered in isolation; we have to think about how the researcher constructs the object of observation. This is most apparent at the quantum-level, where the conditions under which the experiment occurs affect the type of objects that emerge, and even the formal properties of the type of information that can be gleaned. At the psychological and social level, the theory of society that is being employed is part of the socio-structural informational systemic whole that is being observed. It seems to be that only within a thin macroscopic window does 'deductive science' function to provide an objective picture of what is being observed, and this is clearly only a thin slice of the dynamics in purview. At a higher level of analysis, like at the ecological level, deductive science breaks down in that according systems tend to be fundamentally complex, so contextually invariant laws are the wrong informational tools to be applied predicatively. Instead, iterative algorithms provide a better model for the dynamics of the system as it evolves over time.

So what does all this say about the type of information that science provides? I think that it suggests that the history of science doesn't provide a succession of theories that iteratively provide more and more accurate approximations of some grand theory to be discovered at some point in human history. We are, at root, manifestations of sum systemic processes whereby subsystems in the universe come to observe themselves and the processes that produced them. Scientific knowledge presents informational tools that both describe our place in reality and also alter the dynamics of that reality insofar as they are applied as technology and highlight certain aspects of the systems in which that technology arises.

Implicitly, this entails that the sum reality described by scientific knowledge isn't some collection of discrete objects that need to be identified and described accurately, allowing us to infer other levels of analysis and reduce all levels of analysis to one basic level (physics being the usual candidate). Instead, at root, reality is an 'indeterminate flux', a generative body of conditions allowing for certain lines of investigation. As we investigate and apply the fruits of our investigation as technology, this alters the way in which this fundamental, pre or trans-logical reality conditions the possibilities for how it can be rendered intelligible. As an important caveat, I think that this picture is different from the 'anything goes', 'theory creates reality' picture of some strands of post-modernism. The objects of physics are real; for example, the electron is real, particularly insofar as we construct transistors per our understanding of it, but the theory undergirding this understanding is incomplete due to logically necessary conditions underlying the theory's emergence.

ebola

 

[Foreigner]

I'm going to assume we're talking about modern science.

Modern science functions no differently than any other closed epistemology in that it will only accept certain variables of deduction and will preclude all others. I have no quarrel with its methodology because most discrete human systems around the world have made similar observations throughout time, modern science has just taken many of them a lot further. However, the human conclusions which are drawn from said methodology are bound to institutional and sociocultural norms in science, leading to an episodic hegemony over knowledge perception. Such control over people's minds and ways of knowing is incredibly limiting because it teaches them to be unable to see in a multitude of different ways. The notion that what is known now is the pinnacle of what humanity has ever known, because of modern science, is a form of hubris which holds back humanity.

Science manifesting through material reductionism is not inherently honest, mainly because it has strict roots in countering the Church in Europe, and later colonialism. With that kind of upbringing it's incapable of studying the universe through a wider scope. Again, please understand this important distinction: intellectualizing reality is fine if you want to do it, but attempting to use that to override human experience is immoral. Science in other cultures manifested differently, but of course we can't talk about that here because the western school of science is not to be questioned. "Science" simply means knowing. If you've observed something enough times with repeatability, then you know it. That is true science, without confines.

Modern science is imperative for humanity's future, but I can't accept its ontological beliefs about the universe most of the time. When modern scholars translated the Rosetta Stone from Egypt, they did so through a Greek tablet, and then through their modern colonial lens. Scientific studies of the past, and other cultures, functions much this way. The refusal to receive knowledge outside of the confines of its system is a major error in the system, and I can cite many examples. Its results should therefore be taken at face value and not be formed into some notion of a complete cosmology for the simple reason that a lot of supplementary information is left out in order to make it socially acceptable for the accredited journals. I find that comparing notes with ancient systems provides a lot of supplementary material to fill in the gaps and shed light on the future of modern western science. It's a young system with a lot of promise whose incompleteness is not so much the issue, but its puerility around omitting controversy.

 

[sekio]

What's wrong with the need for falsifiability? If seeing is the same as believing, Biggie Smalls still lives, 'cause I saw him in my dream once.

Do you trust human experience to be the sole arbiter of truth? How do you explain psychosis - are delusive beliefs 'true' if they are held strongly enough?

If you've observed something enough times with repeatability, then you know it. That is true science, without confines.

That's perception, in my books. Observing something does not necessarily lead to understanding.

I think the scientific method is pretty much the best method we have for sorting out "perceptual noise" from reproducible effects. Certainly the political aspect of it should be altered somewhat, there is pressure in some of the sciences to find the data to validate your results (cherry picking), rather than the other way around.

In chemistry, for instance, I don't know how you could get to where we are today with the "alchemical" methods of yore. Importantly, you can't build a process on blind faith alone. Formulating a hypothesis, testing it, and evaluating the results objectively is key to optimizing results.

Science is not just the observation of what already exists, it is a method of discovering new things, and being sure that our models work in given scenarios, rather than having high hopes. The sun, one day, will fail to rise, and if humans are still around, those who say "the sun will never stop rising, it is eternal" will eat their hats.

I have trouble accepting the existence of certain things except in their use as social constructs. Ghosts, the afterlife, heaven, aliens.

Science in other cultures manifested differently, but of course we can't talk about that here because the western school of science is not to be questioned. "Science" simply means knowing. If you've observed something enough times with repeatability, then you know it. That is true science, without confines. [...] Scientific studies of the past, and other cultures, functions much this way. The refusal to receive knowledge outside of the confines of its system is a major error in the system, and I can cite many examples.

I'd like for you to elaborate a bit.

 

[lovepsychadelics]

"If you've observed something enough times with repeatability, then you know it. That is true science, without confines." Ebola?. Sorry I have to agree with Sekio, this equates to perception, an individuals perception. This perception cannot be reproduced or replicated in another individual. The ability to replicate or reproduce a result utilizing an objective methodology is essential in validating the results of any scientific research. Philosophy is all about perception of the individual and their relationship with society or their analysis of social conventions, ideologies, belief systems etc.

While epistemology could be inferred to be related to scientific research such as being applied to the "truth" of scientific discovery it also makes the assumption of belief. One persons belief or hypothesis may be proven groundless by the scientific methodology used to validate the hypothesis of another individual. Justification could perhaps be applied to the role of philosophical ethics in scientific research. Is it justified to infect a dozen individuals with a deadly virus in order to test a dozen vaccines when the developer is certain in the knowledge at least a percentage of them will work? The Gettier problem. If a cure is discovered can it be ethically justified that a percentage of others died as a result of the questionable ethical approach used to this scientific research? A vaccine that can cure thousands vs the death of a few? A true ethical predicament. Is this justified in terms of the knowledge that a cure was developed vs the deaths of a few? The argument for both sides has merit.

I think philosophical ethics have a far more important role in terms of scientific discoveries than either ontological or epistemological philosophy.

 

[ebola?]

"If you've observed something enough times with repeatability, then you know it. That is true science, without confines." Ebola?.

I don't really understand your formatting here...is this a quote of me? I neither said nor believe this. . .

ebola

 

[Wontblonk]

What's wrong with the need for falsifiability? If seeing is the same as believing, Biggie Smalls still lives, 'cause I saw him in my dream once...

In some sense, Biggie Smalls DOES still live because you saw him. That might sound like poetry, but perhaps these types of experiences with the dead, especially ones that seem even less "dreamy" and more autonomous, are considered by people as evidence supporting afterlife theories.

After all, in talking of "science" we have to distinguish between the method and the body of knowledge. The body of knowledge will probably be considered mostly wrong 1000 years in the future - we are looking at models and metaphors that help us in our current situation. The current collection of scientific metaphors will become as outdated as the body of religious knowledge seems to many people now - including some theories regarding contact with Notorious from the "other side."

Regarding the method of science, it DOES equate to repeated perception (i.e., observation). That is why many people have gotten different results in experiments that seem to be physical and objective. At the end of the day, we are using our nervous systems to make observations and establish "natural laws" based on things that happen again and again.

Do you trust human experience to be the sole arbiter of truth? How do you explain psychosis - are delusive beliefs 'true' if they are held strongly enough?

Yes. There is no Truth outside consensual norms. As RAW said: "Reality is what you can get away with."

Consider currency: the fact that a piece of useless paper is subjectively "worth" more than a large hunk of delicious cheese says a lot of about our conditioning with mass delusion. Consider the statement that the universe is finite but unbounded - these are counter-intuitive, irrational (read "delusional") takes on physical reality, supported by cultural conditioning from the masses.

I think the scientific method is pretty much the best method we have for sorting out "perceptual noise" from reproducible effects... Formulating a hypothesis, testing it, and evaluating the results objectively is key to optimizing results... Science is not just the observation of what already exists, it is a method of discovering new things, and being sure that our models work in given scenarios, rather than having high hopes... I have trouble accepting the existence of certain things except in their use as social constructs. Ghosts, the afterlife, heaven, aliens

I agree with your statement about the scientific method. That method, however, needs to apply to all phenomena in order to accurately notice any patterns that might be detrimental or useful. In other words, experiences with psi, or with entities such as spirits or aliens, can and should be taken into account with similar rigor as other pieces of data.

We might say we are doing a good job at "sorting out perceptual noise," but so long as many people are consistently experiencing these strange phenomena, are scientists justified in either ignoring these specific types of observations in favor of more acceptable ones, or working with automatic assumptions that certain types of observations are delusional?

The fact that mental illnesses are becoming more prevalent seems to me evidence that our scientific method is not being used as usefully or honestly as it could be. Many people are experiencing things that the scientific community is conditioned into thinking are not worthy of proper unbiased attention with the scientific method.

 

[rickolasnice]

I have trouble accepting the existence of certain things except in their use as social constructs. Ghosts, the afterlife, heaven, aliens.

I assume you mean abductions / visitations?

NSFW:

What's wrong with the need for falsifiability? If seeing is the same as believing, Biggie Smalls still lives, 'cause I saw him in my dream once.

Do you trust human experience to be the sole arbiter of truth? How do you explain psychosis - are delusive beliefs 'true' if they are held strongly enough?



That's perception, in my books. Observing something does not necessarily lead to understanding.

I think the scientific method is pretty much the best method we have for sorting out "perceptual noise" from reproducible effects. Certainly the political aspect of it should be altered somewhat, there is pressure in some of the sciences to find the data to validate your results (cherry picking), rather than the other way around.

In chemistry, for instance, I don't know how you could get to where we are today with the "alchemical" methods of yore. Importantly, you can't build a process on blind faith alone. Formulating a hypothesis, testing it, and evaluating the results objectively is key to optimizing results.

Science is not just the observation of what already exists, it is a method of discovering new things, and being sure that our models work in given scenarios, rather than having high hopes. The sun, one day, will fail to rise, and if humans are still around, those who say "the sun will never stop rising, it is eternal" will eat their hats.

I have trouble accepting the existence of certain things except in their use as social constructs. Ghosts, the afterlife, heaven, aliens.



I'd like for you to elaborate a bit.

This^

 

[sekio]

Pretty much, yeah. The implication is also that a lot of sightings of UFOs are observer error or stuff like Area 51 tests. (A-12/SR71, F117, Predator and the like) There's not much evidence for anything other than what used to be primitive single cellular life in our stellar neighborhood. I have a really hard time accepting people's claims they were abducted by Greys or whatever. Some people insist they are Jesus Christ too, does that mean I can take them at face value?

One of the most powerful governments in the world can't even manage to keep a blowjob under wraps, nor the "covert" usage of LSD etc as mind control, or rampant spying on their own people, so why would a massive alien conspiracy get a free pass? The latter is a little more interesting. IMHO.

 

[rickolasnice]

Nah man I'm with you I don't believe anyone has been abducted outside of dreams, lies and delusions.

 

[Wontblonk]

One of the most powerful governments in the world can't even manage to keep a blowjob under wraps, nor the "covert" usage of LSD etc as mind control, or rampant spying on their own people, so why would a massive alien conspiracy get a free pass? The latter is a little more interesting. IMHO.

Not that I BELIEVE anything I'm about to write (I just find conspiracising fun!), but if there were a hidden agenda "behind" the Government that was involved in an alien cover-up, then surely it would be in their best interest to make their Governmental body look incapable of doing this. It would also be in their best interest to distract the population with petty dramas regarding blow jobs, to keep them relatively distracted and overwhelmed with LSD experiences (not to mention the lumping of UFOlogy into a cultural schmere campaign against a prototypal LSD users), and to let them KNOW that they are being watched - again, by a clumsy group of people who have the power to destroy your life but not the intelligence to get away with anything REALLY creative...

Sorry for off topic...