What is Science?

Off Topic
141

[quote]Humbert wrote:

[quote]jj-dude wrote:

[quote]pch2 wrote:
I’m doing some research on the nature of science, like what do people in general think science is, and was wondering if you all had some thoughts on it. It’s one of those thing I’ve been thinking about that seems simple, yet after a while isn’t at all. I know there is quite the range of people on here, so thought I’d get some opinions.

So, what’s science? [/quote]

I’ll take a stab at this. Being a career research Scientist, I might even get some of it right.

First off, let’s get clear why we have subjects (like Chemistry, Biology, etc.) but examining what discussions were like beforehand. For example, in the Middle Ages, a piece that attempted to investigate some phenomenon would lurch all over the place. This was fine as long as the result was “correct” meaning that it was understood to be consonant with whatever theology was accepted. You find this same mode of investigation in Ideologically-based writings, e.g., plants can grow in the Arctic Circle since Marxism tells us that the proletariat will overcome all hardship for a just society. An awful lot of really trendy academic writing in the Humanities is like this today still.

Subjects give us

  • scope - the ability to tell what is/is not part of the subject
  • methodologies to pose then investigate questions
  • standards of proof to know if we have found an answer OR invalidate one

Truth is congruence between reality and our thoughts, to paraphrase DesCartes. There is an external world, but how should mid-sized primates go about understanding it? It is far to easy to have social bonds get in the way (“you’re wrong because we don’t like you”). Science (from Latin “scire” = to know or understand) is a system therefore for evaluating ideas about the external world.

When people talk about Science as being a belief system, they have so missed the point it is almost impossible to even know where to start. No. Period. Postmodernists generally make these sorts of claims and end up sounding very stupid. Take the case of Bruno Latour, a famous pundit and critic of “Science as a belief system”. Now, Robert Koch discovered the tuberculosis bacteria in 1886 or so. A Pharaoh who died roughly 3,000 years ago was diagnosed as having it a few years ago back and Latour, true to his thinking, publicly stated this was impossible since Science hadn’t invented tuberculosis then. Um, right.

People make very silly comments about Scientists being vain or having other personal foibles but so what? This is to be expected since they are human. It is the methods of Science that determine if the results they come up with are really worth remembering. We should not require Botanists to photosynthesize any more than we should require Physicists to be saintly.

Just making chit-chat…

– jj[/quote]

Good post. I never meant to say that the scientists didn’t know what they were doing. As I said to Xiaonio, I respect what researchers are doing and count more than a few as friends. My meaning is that, as a race, we’re not equipped to deal with the information that science is rendering. We learn to split an atom, and then make bombs as fast as we can. We’re like little kids playing with God’s chemistry set. Only a matter of time before something blows up, because we, all of us, are trying to take our limited scope of existence and apply it to everything in the universe. So maybe all I’m saying is that we’re not smart enough to acknowledge our limits.

But people get really upset by this.[/quote]

We also use the atom to provide the cleanest and most prolific/efficient method of producing power - nuclear power plants.

You can keep pulling only the negative examples and ignoring positive ones, but you won’t stop missing the point by doing so.

142

[quote]Humbert wrote:
Good post. I never meant to say that the scientists didn’t know what they were doing. As I said to Xiaonio, I respect what researchers are doing and count more than a few as friends. My meaning is that, as a race, we’re not equipped to deal with the information that science is rendering. We learn to split an atom, and then make bombs as fast as we can. We’re like little kids playing with God’s chemistry set. Only a matter of time before something blows up, because we, all of us, are trying to take our limited scope of existence and apply it to everything in the universe. So maybe all I’m saying is that we’re not smart enough to acknowledge our limits.

But people get really upset by this.[/quote]

“The abuse of an item does not dictate against it use” is a maxim from Roman Law, so people have been thinking about this for years. You want a weapon of mass destruction? The single most lethal weapon available today is the machete. It seriously is and is preferred in Africa for horrific ethnic cleansing (e.g. Rawanda).

Let’s look at the Bomb. It was used once in history. Look at my posts (search for jj- on the pages) so I don’t repeat myself here:

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/hiroshima_anniversary?id=3238086&pageNo=1

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/hiroshima_anniversary?id=3238086&pageNo=3,

(Civilian bombings in WW II)
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/world_war_2?id=3804354&pageNo=3

Note that in the Japanese case, they were heading back to sword-based warfare in late WW II. While we’re at it, the ovens used in Auschwitz were just run of the mill bread ovens for baking. Do we outlaw bread because of this? On the other hand, look around you. Your standard of living (vastly better than a King in the Middle Ages could hope for) is largely because of all this applied Science. Do you expect that to continue? Science (and the Free Market too) has pulled billions out of abject poverty and given them lives that they would never even remotely have had. The argument that “we might not be good enough” is merely a possibility, but has rarely been borne out in facts. Indeed, the worst cases of abuse have come from regimes whose goals are all moralistic (The Nazis were just redressing past wrongs of Jewish Capitalism, e.g.).

The danger is not the technology but unexamined morality…

And as always, I might just be full of shit…

– jj

143

I’m wondering how Humbert eats his food without electricity or an oven/stove/microwave. That meat must go bad pretty quickly with no fridge too. And it’s not like he can just get fast food because they require all those things as well.

He could hunt for his own food but you don’t get much from anything you can kill with your bear hands (i.e. no technology).

Also he must get pretty gross not having a shower or indoor plumbing.

Visiting relatives is a pain when you have to walk across the entire country.

144

[quote]scj119 wrote:
I’m wondering how Humbert eats his food without electricity or an oven/stove/microwave. That meat must go bad pretty quickly with no fridge too. And it’s not like he can just get fast food because they require all those things as well.

He could hunt for his own food but you don’t get much from anything you can kill with your bear hands (i.e. no technology).

Also he must get pretty gross not having a shower or indoor plumbing.

Visiting relatives is a pain when you have to walk across the entire country.[/quote]

Just to beat a dead horse… One of the biggest problems today is obesity. We overeat and blame corporations for it to no end or chalk it up to any of a number of other problems (poor self image, &c., &c.). This has to be the most astonishing public discussion in human history and nobody has managed to grok why.

Up until a couple of hundred years ago, famine was the norm and people liven in palpable fear of a bad harvest. Food prices were high so good nutrition was often lacking. Science + Free Markets subverted that and lowered prices and availability to the point that people physically cannot cope with the excess.

The criticism of this is all pretty much left-over left-wing agitprop. If food prices are too high, then capitalism is to blame. If prices are too low, ditto. This might be amusing for its simple absurdity, but does bespeak a much greater problem and that is how debates about Science and technology are framed (here is where I jump back on the thread). We have become so good at providing unobtrusive services that people now take them for granted. Arguing, e.g., against vaccinations as being unnatural forgets the true nature of plagues or how dreadful they were (the reason that plagues were seen in religious terms is precisely their inhuman, unrelenting and tragic progress).

So here we have it: The moral stance that X is wrong assumes that all goods services will continue unchanged, but we can make them somehow morally better. People who cannot cook dinner for 10 lobby for changes in an industry that cooks dinner every night for 10 million without an inkling that their changes might not work out right. It never dawns on any of these pundits to ask themselves what might actually happen if people listen to them – this is the effect of an educational system that cherishes irresponsibility as part of creativity and unaccountability as part of morality.

And as always, I might just be full of shit…

– jj

145

[quote]jj-dude wrote:

[quote]scj119 wrote:
I’m wondering how Humbert eats his food without electricity or an oven/stove/microwave. That meat must go bad pretty quickly with no fridge too. And it’s not like he can just get fast food because they require all those things as well.

He could hunt for his own food but you don’t get much from anything you can kill with your bear hands (i.e. no technology).

Also he must get pretty gross not having a shower or indoor plumbing.

Visiting relatives is a pain when you have to walk across the entire country.[/quote]

Just to beat a dead horse… One of the biggest problems today is obesity. We overeat and blame corporations for it to no end or chalk it up to any of a number of other problems (poor self image, &c., &c.). This has to be the most astonishing public discussion in human history and nobody has managed to grok why.

Up until a couple of hundred years ago, famine was the norm and people liven in palpable fear of a bad harvest. Food prices were high so good nutrition was often lacking. Science + Free Markets subverted that and lowered prices and availability to the point that people physically cannot cope with the excess.

The criticism of this is all pretty much left-over left-wing agitprop. If food prices are too high, then capitalism is to blame. If prices are too low, ditto. This might be amusing for its simple absurdity, but does bespeak a much greater problem and that is how debates about Science and technology are framed (here is where I jump back on the thread). We have become so good at providing unobtrusive services that people now take them for granted. Arguing, e.g., against vaccinations as being unnatural forgets the true nature of plagues or how dreadful they were (the reason that plagues were seen in religious terms is precisely their inhuman, unrelenting and tragic progress).

So here we have it: The moral stance that X is wrong assumes that all goods services will continue unchanged, but we can make them somehow morally better. People who cannot cook dinner for 10 lobby for changes in an industry that cooks dinner every night for 10 million without an inkling that their changes might not work out right. It never dawns on any of these pundits to ask themselves what might actually happen if people listen to them – this is the effect of an educational system that cherishes irresponsibility as part of creativity and unaccountability as part of morality.

And as always, I might just be full of shit…

– jj[/quote]

Again, well said. I was using the atom as a quick example. At best, we surely can agree that nuclear technology is a two-edged sword. Personally, I think the downside is a little worse than the upside is good(total annihilation of life on earth is a bummer). But my thinking isn’t morality-based. I never said we weren’t “good” enough, I said not smart enough. One thing that no one wants to discuss is that perhaps we have a set place in the cosmic scheme of things and by constantly trying to overreach this limit we are damaging ourselves. Too big for our britches, so to say. It seems to happen too often that as we laud ourselves for some great accomplishment, we unknowingly set off a unseen chain of events that bites us in the future.

Here’s another example: Before we go and try to discover new worlds to colonize, might it not be a better idea to first learn to live in harmony with the ecosystem we’re in now?

–Didn’t you see Avatar!! Haha.

146

[quote]Humbert wrote:

[quote]jj-dude wrote:

[quote]scj119 wrote:
I’m wondering how Humbert eats his food without electricity or an oven/stove/microwave. That meat must go bad pretty quickly with no fridge too. And it’s not like he can just get fast food because they require all those things as well.

He could hunt for his own food but you don’t get much from anything you can kill with your bear hands (i.e. no technology).

Also he must get pretty gross not having a shower or indoor plumbing.

Visiting relatives is a pain when you have to walk across the entire country.[/quote]

Just to beat a dead horse… One of the biggest problems today is obesity. We overeat and blame corporations for it to no end or chalk it up to any of a number of other problems (poor self image, &c., &c.). This has to be the most astonishing public discussion in human history and nobody has managed to grok why.

Up until a couple of hundred years ago, famine was the norm and people liven in palpable fear of a bad harvest. Food prices were high so good nutrition was often lacking. Science + Free Markets subverted that and lowered prices and availability to the point that people physically cannot cope with the excess.

The criticism of this is all pretty much left-over left-wing agitprop. If food prices are too high, then capitalism is to blame. If prices are too low, ditto. This might be amusing for its simple absurdity, but does bespeak a much greater problem and that is how debates about Science and technology are framed (here is where I jump back on the thread). We have become so good at providing unobtrusive services that people now take them for granted. Arguing, e.g., against vaccinations as being unnatural forgets the true nature of plagues or how dreadful they were (the reason that plagues were seen in religious terms is precisely their inhuman, unrelenting and tragic progress).

So here we have it: The moral stance that X is wrong assumes that all goods services will continue unchanged, but we can make them somehow morally better. People who cannot cook dinner for 10 lobby for changes in an industry that cooks dinner every night for 10 million without an inkling that their changes might not work out right. It never dawns on any of these pundits to ask themselves what might actually happen if people listen to them – this is the effect of an educational system that cherishes irresponsibility as part of creativity and unaccountability as part of morality.

And as always, I might just be full of shit…

– jj[/quote]

Again, well said. I was using the atom as a quick example. At best, we surely can agree that nuclear technology is a two-edged sword. Personally, I think the downside is a little worse than the upside is good(total annihilation of life on earth is a bummer). But my thinking isn’t morality-based. I never said we weren’t “good” enough, I said not smart enough. One thing that no one wants to discuss is that perhaps we have a set place in the cosmic scheme of things and by constantly trying to overreach this limit we are damaging ourselves. Too big for our britches, so to say. It seems to happen too often that as we laud ourselves for some great accomplishment, we unknowingly set off a unseen chain of events that bites us in the future.

Here’s another example: Before we go and try to discover new worlds to colonize, might it not be a better idea to first learn to live in harmony with the ecosystem we’re in now?

–Didn’t you see Avatar!! Haha.[/quote]

I get the impression you like to ignore my posts because they directly answer WHY it is that we over reach and have used science with an eye on the short-term. You keep going back to this issue and attempting to provoke posters.

Here’s a question for you: how do YOU think we can get around this issue? Why don’t you stop berating and start brainstorming?

Please realize, a word like “Should” has no place in this discussion. We need "can"s and "do"s. The ecosystem doesn’t give a shit about what humans “should” do.

147

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Humbert wrote:

[quote]jj-dude wrote:

[quote]scj119 wrote:
I’m wondering how Humbert eats his food without electricity or an oven/stove/microwave. That meat must go bad pretty quickly with no fridge too. And it’s not like he can just get fast food because they require all those things as well.

He could hunt for his own food but you don’t get much from anything you can kill with your bear hands (i.e. no technology).

Also he must get pretty gross not having a shower or indoor plumbing.

Visiting relatives is a pain when you have to walk across the entire country.[/quote]

Just to beat a dead horse… One of the biggest problems today is obesity. We overeat and blame corporations for it to no end or chalk it up to any of a number of other problems (poor self image, &c., &c.). This has to be the most astonishing public discussion in human history and nobody has managed to grok why.

Up until a couple of hundred years ago, famine was the norm and people liven in palpable fear of a bad harvest. Food prices were high so good nutrition was often lacking. Science + Free Markets subverted that and lowered prices and availability to the point that people physically cannot cope with the excess.

The criticism of this is all pretty much left-over left-wing agitprop. If food prices are too high, then capitalism is to blame. If prices are too low, ditto. This might be amusing for its simple absurdity, but does bespeak a much greater problem and that is how debates about Science and technology are framed (here is where I jump back on the thread). We have become so good at providing unobtrusive services that people now take them for granted. Arguing, e.g., against vaccinations as being unnatural forgets the true nature of plagues or how dreadful they were (the reason that plagues were seen in religious terms is precisely their inhuman, unrelenting and tragic progress).

So here we have it: The moral stance that X is wrong assumes that all goods services will continue unchanged, but we can make them somehow morally better. People who cannot cook dinner for 10 lobby for changes in an industry that cooks dinner every night for 10 million without an inkling that their changes might not work out right. It never dawns on any of these pundits to ask themselves what might actually happen if people listen to them – this is the effect of an educational system that cherishes irresponsibility as part of creativity and unaccountability as part of morality.

And as always, I might just be full of shit…

– jj[/quote]

Again, well said. I was using the atom as a quick example. At best, we surely can agree that nuclear technology is a two-edged sword. Personally, I think the downside is a little worse than the upside is good(total annihilation of life on earth is a bummer). But my thinking isn’t morality-based. I never said we weren’t “good” enough, I said not smart enough. One thing that no one wants to discuss is that perhaps we have a set place in the cosmic scheme of things and by constantly trying to overreach this limit we are damaging ourselves. Too big for our britches, so to say. It seems to happen too often that as we laud ourselves for some great accomplishment, we unknowingly set off a unseen chain of events that bites us in the future.

Here’s another example: Before we go and try to discover new worlds to colonize, might it not be a better idea to first learn to live in harmony with the ecosystem we’re in now?

–Didn’t you see Avatar!! Haha.[/quote]

I get the impression you like to ignore my posts because they directly answer WHY it is that we over reach and have used science with an eye on the short-term. You keep going back to this issue and attempting to provoke posters.

Here’s a question for you: how do YOU think we can get around this issue? Why don’t you stop berating and start brainstorming?

Please realize, a word like “Should” has no place in this discussion. We need "can"s and "do"s. The ecosystem doesn’t give a shit about what humans “should” do.[/quote]

Our internal moral codes dicate what we do. By debating and deciding what we “should” do, we ultimately influence what happens in the world, when these ideas spread. The solutions to all of the issues that challenge us as a race will come from people internalising new moral codes and value systems, after they have been convinced of their validity.

I disagree with the notion that science is to blame for anything. Science is a discipline, a subject, a method of inquiry. It is amoral. It is people who misuse the results of science, not science itself, that are the cause of these problems that are being blamed on science.

I’m a firm believer that most of the worlds problems will cease when we eventually unify under a single world government. Hopefully this should give us cause to start working together more as a race than the current state of affairs.

Science, logic and reason should be the main disciplines taught in all schools. The educational system in the western world is fucked. The ancient greeks were way ahead of us in this regard. I think its sad that people are not taught how to think for themselves.

148

^I’d put reason at the head of this list. Nice post.

149

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

Our internal moral codes dicate what we do.[/quote]

Have you considered where these moral codes came from, how they developed, and what purposes they’ve served in humanity’s 200,000 year evolution?

Really? Does your moral code match everything you do? For instance, you know many things you do on a daily basis directly or indirectly harm other living creatures including humans in third world countries and your future children. By being online right now, I’m assuming you’re using the internet in your home. A lot of natural resources were demolished for that alone to happen. You morally understand that isn’t ideal but continue to do it because it’s convenient. The same thing holds true for your drinking water, the clothes on your back, the electricity that heats your house, the gas in your car, much of the food in your fridge, and just about everything else you do. How many of your daily activities have you altered because you understand that you should?

I don’t think you’re a “bad person”. I’m merely pointing out that it’s quite naive to think that what people think they “should” do and what they actually do are the same thing. This is why I stated that I’m not interested in “shoulds”.

[quote]
I disagree with the notion that science is to blame for anything. Science is a discipline, a subject, a method of inquiry. It is amoral. It is people who misuse the results of science, not science itself, that are the cause of these problems that are being blamed on science.

I’m a firm believer that most of the worlds problems will cease when we eventually unify under a single world government. Hopefully this should give us cause to start working together more as a race than the current state of affairs.[/quote]

Do you understand much about power dynamics? These are not going to disappear the more unified we become. We’re a social animal and we’re always going to desire a safer place on the totem with more resources. Look at the average american- their stomach is full, they have access to all of their needs plus a ton of wants, and yet they still work themselves into the ground trying to get more. The guys on the top aren’t working as hard, instead they’re trying to enable the guys under them to work harder. This has always been the norm for humans. Do you honestly believe that will change if all of the guys at the top become buddies?

150

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

Our internal moral codes dicate what we do.[/quote]

Have you considered where these moral codes came from, how they developed, and what purposes they’ve served in humanity’s 200,000 year evolution?

Really? Does your moral code match everything you do? For instance, you know many things you do on a daily basis directly or indirectly harm other living creatures including humans in third world countries and your future children. By being online right now, I’m assuming you’re using the internet in your home. A lot of natural resources were demolished for that alone to happen. You morally understand that isn’t ideal but continue to do it because it’s convenient. The same thing holds true for your drinking water, the clothes on your back, the electricity that heats your house, the gas in your car, much of the food in your fridge, and just about everything else you do. How many of your daily activities have you altered because you understand that you should?

I don’t think you’re a “bad person”. I’m merely pointing out that it’s quite naive to think that what people think they “should” do and what they actually do are the same thing. This is why I stated that I’m not interested in “shoulds”.

Moral codes and physiological pre-programmed drives are two different things. I hear you on evolution, I know where you are coming from, but the human race has a much more powerful gift than any primate, and that is the power of introspection. We have powerful subconcious drives that are difficult to control. We do control them though. For example, the urge to go to the toilet. We don’t just piss and shit everywhere, we have modified out behaviour since the belief that it is disgusting to do this, and unhygeinic to boot, has become widespread. In fact you could say that as a result of our understanding of science and microbiology, this change in behaviour has become common due to the fact that to do otherwise spreads disease and causes harm.

We have the power to over-ride our basic drives. It comes from the mental structure that each and everyone of us operates under, our belief systems.

Once an idea becomes incorporated into your belief system, it affects everything you do without even realising it. You CANNOT do anything other than act according to your belief system. The only thing that can change your behavior is a change in your belief system.

With regard to my own belief system and moral code, I would say that almost everything I do is in line with my beliefs. I recycle, I try to save energy where I can and reduce waste, I grow some of my own food. I don’t do these things and others out of a sense of obligation, my belief system makes me do them. The only times I don’t act according to my own code are when my emotions get the better of me. This doesn’t happen very often, and I am ok with it. I am human after all. As long as I do my best, thats all I can do, and thats all anyone else can do too.

As far as should’s go, I agree that what people “should” do and what they actually do are disconnected. This is because there is a disconnect between what we generally accept as the right thing to do, and what we believe is the right thing for US to do PERSONALLY. Voter apathy is a good example, most people are convinced of the importance of voting but at the same time, most people will acknowledge that their single vote is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. For some people the latter belief takes precedence. Whether you choose to vote depends upon your particular belief system about voting. Ultimately though, it is our own internal “shoulds” that dictate where we vote, not the general ones.

And as for power dynamics, I agree with you, but don’t forget what you wrote about the tribal nature of the EU. I think the same thing is possible on a global scale. Remember, it is ideas that start revolutions. “shoulds” have toppled governments, and started wars. The world WILL change for the better, the one thing we all have in common is the drive for our own survival, and this will ultimately unite us all, once our belief systems come to reflect the true need for us to work together towards a common purpose.