It correlates directly, otherwise academics would never comment on it. Scientists use their positions and titles to argue against theology. Richard Dawkins is a good example.
Name ten scientists apart from Dawkins who devote their time to attacking religion.
We cannot discuss that subject I’m afraid, much as I’d like to.
Not sure what this means. Perhaps it’s too obvious for me.
All right then, the Pythagoreans had a very underdeveloped science of music. It was still a science though. Most musicians got on fine without their science and yet still did their art. You can perform an instrument by intuition and not complex categorized knowledge of music theory.
If you mean physical scientists, then I generally agree with you.
You are talking specifically about the scientific method regarding the physical sciences, not all sciences (not deductive sciences, for example).
Why? You realize you still have not given me a reason why it’s absurd.
The so-called “modern scientist” as you say studies a physical science (one founded on induction), whereas the logician studies a non-physical science, (one founded on deduction).
No idea what you’re talking about. What are they becoming more influential in?
And what a shame. It is quite obvious sometimes that some physicists certainly did not study logic.
If that’s true (which it’s not), then a scientist does not know why he does his science. In fact, without knowing why he does his science, it’s likely he’ll just stop doing it. Hence, I would say a philosophy of science is very useful to him. So, I disagree with that quote entirely.
He meant that anything that wasn’t physics or applied physics isn’t really science. You’ll find that the vast majority of scientists take an extremely disparaging view of philosophers who try to pass off their opinions as science or somehow superior to science.
Actually, it’s more by muscle memory you play an instrument. The pythogoreans had a very astute understanding of the science of music. Given the mathematical apparatus they had at the time, I’d say they had an astonishing understanding of the science of music.
I do, and I thought by now I’d have succeeded in establishing that as far as I’m concerned they are the only type of scientist.
For that read pseudo science and see above.
I have stated time and time again. It’s absurd because it is vague and meaningless.
There is no such thing as science based on deduction. All scientific hypotheses must be testable by experiment before they can pass the peer review process of the academic arena. There are no exceptions to this in modern science.
All walks of life. Even the Vatican has some of the most sophisticated labs and the finest scientists on this planet.
None study logic. Perhaps as a hobby, but the academic syllabus for physics does not include logic.
They should hog the word to seperate real scientists from pseudo scientists. I don’t see how I can speak any more plainly than that.
That’s up to you, but I’m sure the late, great Richard Feynman knows considerably more than you do about how a scientist should practice science.
The correct answer is neither, but that is because your question is ineptly formed.
Philosophers aren’t passing their opinions off as inductive physical science but merely as science (organized body of knowledge) which is what the definition of “science” has been for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years (and still is largely). The physical scientists you’re talking about, since they don’t study of the philosophy of science apparenlty are really unqualified to talk about that distinction, since it’s a philosophical distinction and not a physical one. Philosophers (and/or linguists) and not physicists should determine what “science” means.
Fine. Muscle memory is surely not an organized body of knowledge that lays out basic principles and gets systematized in a intellectual structure with its own terminology and whatnot. Hence, playing an instrument does not require an organized body of knowledge.
Yes, I’ve already conceded that the Pythagoreans had a science of music theory, but have also made the case that not all musicians naturally have an organized body of knowledge with regard to their music, as it relies on muscle memory, as you say.
People can recreate other people’s music by intuition. It does not requires pre-existing intellectual and systematized structures of knowledge.
No, you haven’t succeeded, because you haven’t given me a reason to accept that.
So, you reject the distinction between an organized body of knowledge and merely a jumble of related but unstructured collection of intuitions? That’s strange.
If you define science as “an organized body of knowledge” which is what the definition was before silly physicists tried to change that, then you are wrong.
You are talking about the scientific method that particularly applies to physical sciences. Not all sciences.
Yeah … okay … and what was your point again?
**But do you deny, therefore, that physicists think logically?
Well, you haven’t given me a good reason why we should narrow the meaning of science from what it has been since its birth and still continues to be among many people.
Well, if he ignored the philosophy of science, then there is no reason he would know how a scientists should practice science because that’s a philosophical question. He’s a hypocrite.
I’m sorry, if the scientist doesn’t know why he practices science, then there is no reason he can see to keep doing it. He is bound to stop doing it if he does know the “why.”
What you usually find with these kinds of things is that the moral majority determine what a word means and the linguists and philosophers follow half a century later.
Congratulations on completely mangling the context behind that.
I’m not sure what you hope to achieve by this insistance that there is no science behind music, but in any case you’re wrong.
Yes, it does. No one of Earth could recreate Beethoven’s Ninth by intuition.
What? You don’t accept that I know what my own opinion is? Why should I lie?
I think that to term something as an “organized body of knowledge” is vague enough to mean many things to many people.
Maybe, but as you know, I don’t.
As far as I’m concerned that is an oxymoron. Any science where there is no experimental verification is not science.
The vast majority of physicists wouldn’t know a logical fallacy if they fell over one.
That is a debate that I fear you and I are doomed to remain on opposite sides of.
No it isn’t. It’s an heuristic question.
I’m pretty sure that for most scientists, the why would be to do with the remuneration that feeds his family and keeps a roof over their heads, not to mention allowing him to have a nice motor car, a large flatscreen television and a summer vacation.
Indeed… I still have high hopes that the scientists of the world will send all the philosophers and linguists on a huge rocket on a collision orbit with the Sun when the “Great Awakening” comes, then we can maybe get down to scientific experimentation without all the silly attacks on verbal intent.
And the linguists and philosophers still see the word “science” being used as “an organized body of knowledge.” Get with the program.
Congratulations for not explaining how I mangled it.
I’m insisting that some musicians possess a science of music (i.e. an organized body of knowledge regarding music) and some do not, which runs contrary to your assertion that all musicians necessarily have an organized body of knowledge regarding music. Because some musicians have a organized body of musical knowledge and some do not, it shows that the original definition of science is useful and meaningful.
I may agree. Most, at least, would therefore require an organized body of musical knowledge … i.e. musical science.
You’re not necessarily lying. You probably just not thinking logically.
… okay. Well, that’s what it means. It’s much broader than you’re used to. But that’s how many people use it and have used it since the very beginning. This is what Aquinas meant when he mentions it in the quote on his thread (bringing it back on the topic).
That’s because you have too narrow a definition of science. Experimentation pertains to methods of physical sciences and not all sciences.
How interesting that you admit that.
What a grim outlook. I personally have faith that you’re smart enough to see that “science” is aptly fit to be defined as “an organized body of knowledge” because, after all, that’s what it has meant forever and how it is often still used today. It’s not a realization that I think you’re incapable of making.
Why? Why does he need to be trained this way? You haven’t answered that. You’re just making assertions without backing them up. What’s to say that “a scientist” needs to know more … or less … than what you have said here? Well?
So, the reason for being “a scientist” is to do all these things. But people achieve these goals without being a physical scientist (they can be a lawyer for example). Why does a physicist operate in a different way than a lawyer if they are achieving the same goal? There must be a reason why a physicist acts in a particular way, different from how lawyers act, and apparently you have no idea why? Or do you? If a physicist really didn’t know why he was doing what he was doing … why doesn’t he start acting like a lawyer? Obviously, the physicist needs to know why he’s doing the thing he’s doing, otherwise he wouldn’t act like a physicist.
This is why physical scientists need logic (or at least philosophers to guide them). Otherwise, they sometimes say garbage like this. They want to “get down to scientific experimentation” and yet have no idea why they should. Lunatics.
Sapientia est ordinare or “wisdom is to organize.”
“an organized body of garbage”
I think those are two very false things to say.
Then perhaps you ought to actually peruse my post until you can understand it.
Hello Geremia. John Damians reply was almost perfect.
Much as I hate appeals to authority, Richard Feynman is an authority on science. Anything he says about science you can take to the bank.
From experience of knowing many of them well and knowing their opinions. They’re were three hundred people in my lecture group at Paisley University, and not one of them ever mentioned logic, including the lecturers.
They most definitely are doing it implicitly. I studied science for years and didn’t find out what a logical absolute was until I stumbled across this forum. Knowing the law of contradiction as I do now would not have one iota of effect on how I would perform an experiment.
A lot of theoretical physics is pseudoscience.
These distinctions would only be important to a philosopher. What a scientist needs to know is how to set up proper controls for an experiment to see if it verifies or falsifies a particular hypothesis.A scientist needs to know the philosophy of science to know the limitations of their work. I perfectly agree that many scientist today unfortunately do not know the philosophy of science and therefore make wild illogical claims such as ‘‘Every truth should be verifiable’’, ‘‘Scientific method is proven’’, and ‘‘Science invalidates religion’’ etc. I think examples like these show more clearly the need for every scientist to get themselves educated on the philosophy of science than not.
A dilettante might fool around with musical instruments without knowing anything about music. I’d hardly, lol, describe such a person as a musician. Any competant professional musician has an extensive knowledge in technical terms of music. Anyone who does not is an amateur.
As I recall, I was stating a personal opinion.
The defintion I use pertains to every science that has not been thoroughly routed from the academic arena.
Yes, it would be fair. You’ll find many examples of famous scientists saying things that are counter to logic. Even Einstein.
Because that is what a scientists does. Science is an heuristic. Observe → Hypothesize → Experiment → Repeat.
I refer you to what I said above.
Why not? If he’s trained to act like a physicist, he’ll act like a physicist. Modern science evolved very gradually over centuries. It wasn’t invented by a committee of philosophers.
Then could you kindly explain the reasoning behind the term PhD (doctor of philosophy), which is regarded as one of the highest degree’s atainable?
And you are a flat earther. Science produces results. LASER Beams, Cavity Magnetrons, Vaccinations, Micro Processors, the Haber Process, the Motor Car, the Television…Then could you kindly explain the reasoning behind the term PhD (doctor of philosophy), which is regarded as one of the highest degree’s atainable?
I think you’ll find, most subjects have Philosophy degree’s awarded in them, in fact in terms of Doctorates, the PHD is one of the most common (not like obsqure things like DD, S ThD etc.)
So, to say philosophy has been “routed” from the academic arena is ignorant and absurd.
Modern “science” is just a grubby upstart spawned from the Natural Theolgians… “science” is a word used to denote an organised body of knowlege.
If you would rather have the 12 year old idea of a scientist as a man in a white coat with goggles on playing testubes with the coloured liquids then fine, but trying to apply your pre-highschool ideas of linguistics without any supporting data, any logical reinforcement, any etymological redaction just shows yourself as a fool… You’r the logical equivalent of a flat-earther, and your repeated assertions “it is cos it is” and your blatent circular reasoning is at best embarresing.
Well, for starters.
Philsophy created science? I always thought that science was gradually built piece by piece over centuries by various experimenters.